No, I answered that one in #286. I understand that you reject the my so-called "novel theory", even though you can see it demonstrated in every news cast where there is a sufficiently distant foreign correspondent...

That footage is obviously just excerpts? You might as well complain that the video shows it took only 2 minutes to reach the moon after lifting off from Earth.

Like it or not, Ntubski, the unexplainable lack-of-delay is still there and you simply can't sponge it away. Mission Control and the Moon are engaging in a conversation as though the three-second delay wasn't there ... simply because "it wasn't."

By your "novel apologist theory," Houston would have had to begun saying, "Roger, we copy you down," having only possibly heard "Tr...". How could they have done this when the next words might have been, "Tragically, we just crashed." It simply isn't possible. The two parties were having a real-time conversation, supposedly "faster than the speed of light."

Like it or not, this is "a smoking gun," sitting in plain sight in the very first and most important "from the Moon" supposedly-live broadcasts, and my six-year old self was an eyewitness to the deception. You really can't explain it away.

There are 2022 photos of footprint tracks on the moon in 4 exact locations and still working laser reflectors that couldn't have been precisely placed circa 1970 (oops...was a typo..fixed), as required, by robots and no enemy found a single reason to deny the truth of the repeated 6 landings and the best you have is communication on a public newscast? You've drunk the KoolAid, sundialsvcs, 100% committed to one possibility to the emphatic, offhand rejection of any other possibility, a stance you formed as a 6 year old. What's wrong with this picture?

Since we are discussing the certainty of mathetmatical knowledge, we must also consider exceptions outside the consistent framework. One God plus One God, is still just One God.

In otherwords, Zero, and Infinity, are therefore: myths.

The same applies to the rest of mathematics as well. Regardless of whether mathematicians can feel beyond the placeholders, they at least admit that there are presumptions, though they often call them premises or postulates, and have multiple mathematical systems based on different presumptions, as in the case with geometry's handling of parallel lines, such that there isn't any certainty at all: is it euclidean, hyperbolic, or elliptic? Which myth is it, or is there another that hasn't yet been conceived?

An infinity of vectors that all cancel each other out can be both infinity and zero such that the universe is potentially everything and nothing simultaneously. Just because infinity and zero, along with other mathetmatical operators like equality, are mere myths, doesn't devalue their use as tools of interpretation. And this is all fine luxurious abstract contemplation, until a choice is required of you: to kill or not to kill, and making that choice requires selecting from among all those abstract presumptions, which ones to apply to the situation demanding a choice.

After having made a few such choices, it gets easier to reuse the same set of presumptions the next time you have to kill or not kill, a choice that can come up for most living things in a variety of ways, from harvesting food, to serving on a jury, or serving as the judge, to defense of self or nation, mercy to the suffering, and so on.

Faith is an inner hope that one is relying on the correct set of presumptions when making choices. Faith is believing in your own myths: the ones you vote for when you do anything.

As a mathematician and educator I have to point out that all of Mathematics is an abstraction. None of it is real, and it never has been real. You do not argue with 1, shake the hand of 3 on the way out the door, or step over poor 7 drunk in the gutter since 10 left him. They do not exist except within our minds: we created them. We created mappings from them to the real world, and rules for manipulating them that map to things that work for us in the real world, but all of Mathematics is a huge game where we made the tokens, we make the rules, and we map those things to reality and play with how they can predict real events.

Some might be discouraged by that, many of my students found Mathematics a lot more FUN once they realized it is all a game! ;-)

As for moon-earth communications, the ONE WAY delay is about 2.5 seconds, (depending upon what spot on earth and where the moon is in its orbit in relation about 2.39 to 2.74 seconds: averaging about 2.56) A recording from a single end will only show a delay when you transmit a question
and have to wait for an answer. If the transmission is from the other end, you have no way to see when it was sent so you observe no delay. I have seen nothing that leads me to believe that the observations I made in 1969 are invalid, or that there is anything presented so far that is not consistent with a real moon landing at that time. In fact, if you consider the movie making and recording technology available in 1969 it would appear that there is a GREAT deal of evidence that would make faking it simply unbelievable even if the rest of the world did not exist. The rest of the world DOES exist, was watching in multiple ways, and would have been HAPPY to jump on the USA faking anything.

As a prime example, The Soviet Union started out ahead of the USA in the space race. They certainly had the technology to track our missions, and did. Had we faked the moon mission, they would have loved NOTHING better than to make us look silly!

BTW: USSR used mechanical "computers" to make orbital predictions and flight adjustment measurements, and those cogs and wheels were just as accurate as our primitive electronic "computers" and far less subject to radiation interference. If that does not impress you, it should.

PS. My first degree was in Physics. It would be best for everyone if we did not get started on that.

That's just literally logic. Of the boolean subcategory.

If you study advanced mathematical theory and number systems, a system where 1+1=2 is an entire family of systems. In ours, 1+1=2, 2+2=4, 4+4=8, etc. Just as valid a system would progress 1+1=2, 2+2=3, 3+3=4, etc.
A system if identity where 1+1=1, 2+2=2, 3+3=3, is also not unique.

It is interesting to imagine the model of reality to which such systems would directly map, and how useful that might be.

It is also interesting that a concept of mathematics that fits several of these in the family where 1+1=1 is involved in several of our common mythologies that have their origin very early in, or before, recorded history. Interesting, but it is unclear if there is any conjecture to be derived from that with any value for us today, much less in the current discussion. It does give us to understand that someone that deep in our past was quite a thinker! But then, not only many our current systems of numbers and pre-metric measures, concepts and measures of times and space, but also customs of trade, religion, accounting, and marketing derive from periods as ancient.

Perhaps, on the great scale of humanity, we are the retarded branch.

Did you mean two way rather than one way there? (see e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%...nd_time_spread https://staveleyfa.com/what-is-the-c...arth-and-moon/)

Yes! Exactly what I've been trying to explain.

Since we are communicating via digital computers which employ Mathematics for coding instructions, please note that one can choose Binary, Hex, Octet... whatever rule set you prefer as long as the translation into Machine Code is consistent. I am unaware of any rule set in which an addition results in less than the combination, but then I never got past Calculus and a smidgen of odd Geometrys. From my POV, "1 Unicorn plus 1 Unicorn = 1 Unicorn" makes zero sense on more than one level, not the least of which there are no "Unicorns" to add. In the case of Gods, it is my understanding there have been thousands, all as real as "Unicorns" no matter what rule set one chooses.

I think it entirely safe to say that "mathematics is a human language." Yes, it is a very rigorous and special-purpose language, but it is a language nonetheless. It exists to facilitate problem-solving and communication. For this reason and purpose, it abides by its own rules and is answerable to none other. The entire concept and design of it is purposeful, and within its context it has proven to be extremely effective.

At an appropriate level of abstraction, physics also becomes "a language." This is the point beyond which we are seeking to discuss things that we cannot actually observe. (Or, as the case may be: "beyond [Isaac Newton's] practical observations," courtesy of Albert Einstein.) The "language" allows us to explore beyond this point of human limitations, in what (we think ...) is "a meaningful and productive way."

Instead, I think that they simply realized that it was pointless. Like many legitimate spatial explorations since that time, they focused their attention on robotic probes. As we right now also ought to be doing.

Why do we invest so much time and attention to (successful!) robotic explorations of both our nearby and outer planets, yet neglect our own Moon? Of course I know the purely-political answer. Apollo has unfortunately become an impediment to future legitimate exploration. Because of a few golf balls.

Today, by now, we easily could have landed an actual "lunar lander" staffed by robots. They could be our proxies – doing the explorations that our frail carbon-based bodies cannot yet(!) do. We could have done this, except for one thing: "1960's politics."

Sundialsvcs - As I pointed out it is not so that the Soviets focused solely on robotics. They just hid the human crewed effort as they often did to be able to sculpt the News as authoritarian leaders always do, showing only "to print what fits" the glory of the party/leader. Apollo is not in any shape or form an impediment. The impediment was and is political funding. Nixon enjoyed the fruits of Kennedy's challenge and substantial increase in funding (and also lost LOTS of money from a bad tip on an Eastern European country's non-existing space technology abilities).

Nixon got his "most historic phone call" moment but had pressing earthly concerns in Vietnam and managed to extend the war for 4 more years, costing more money and lives, with zero gains in terms, while delivering a gut shot to NASA from which it has never fully recovered. NASA's budget has been less than 1/10th of what it took to get to the Moon and this is why NASA is currently suffering with crappy old Shuttle era hardware and software in the plagued Artemis missions that is a testament to the incredible ingenuity of the engineers to actually "polish a turd".

Robots are great but they don't (yet?) offer the same improv processes that humans do, let alone stir public support of funding that heroes do. If your personal bias is, as it seems, deep distrust of the "gubmint" I think it is misplaced doubting NASA so deeply. It is "the gubmint's" fault we ceased going to the moon, not NASA's, and blind doubting despite so much evidence that we actually do have some serious heroes far more laudable than any human explorers in all of History, is counter-productive and something of a crime against Humanity and in itself an impediment. Maybe consider redirecting your skepticism away from scientists and placing it instead at the feet of one of the top crooks of the 20th Century, "Tricky Dick".

It's all a case of "which hand-me-down" Press release, or which possible lie do you believe? Germany got one story; Uk got another; US got another, etc.

I believe it not because I trust the individuals involved (I don't) but believe a sucessful fake would have been a more difficult achievement than the moon landing. The rough course the space capsule would have to travel would be known, So radar echoes and telescopic observations could be made, and would have been in the Cold War era. If they hadn't made the trip, for sure the Russians or Chinese would have called them out. Can you imagine what a public relations coup for Russia (& nightmare for the US) that would have been?

That's why the Bible stands out to me as different. Prophecies were fulfilled in detail. Often, one individual recorded the prophecy and another recorded the fulfillment. Not many of you here believe that, but that's the exception to the "Whose lie do you believe?" rule. What human can foretell the Future accurately? Nobody can, except someone who can bend the future to fit.

1 Kings 22:19-23 and it's fulfillment 1 Kings 22:34-38

Very likely it was in no one's best interests to "call them out." But, also don't follow them. It always struck me that in the "space race" to build satellites and so forth, the Russians never attempted nor suggested their own "moon mission." But they did send probes. We also have the know-how to build and land probes and we have had marked success with them. We do need to robotically explore our closest orbiting body, to learn the actual conditions there. But we refuse to do that because of Apollo. And that simply means that the necessary missions are not flown, and the necessary data is not collected. We could never get away with Apollo today, and the truth is that we're not getting away with it now.

C'mon sundialsvcs, surely you are more wise than that. What possibly could have been a greater propaganda coup than catching the US with it's pants down in such a massive manner? Had the US been caught trying to fake something so HUGE the world would forever more doubt literally everything US, if for no other reason tyhatn the immense hubris of imagining the US could pull off such an incredible stunt. As business-kid pointed out, it truly would have been easier to land on the Moon than to fake it.



Apparently you didn't believe me so here... you can follow from there if you seek something deeper than wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet...lunar_programs


Do you have any idea just how many Lunar Probes have flown since Apollo by numerous nations? We couldn't have faked Apollo circa 1970, sundialsvcs. Do you not grasp RADAR and radio telemetry? Do you not think the Soviets understood Photography, the avoidance of Van Allen belts, or communication delays?

C'mon man. Step down off your rigidity or just 10 minutes, look around and attempt a little "reductio ad absurdum" from BOTH directions instead of just the one.