Was the landing on the moon a fake?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

But then what was your point of bringing up John Hanson, if it wasn't to point out the epistemic analogy that in both cases you weren't there to observe what went down. My claim is the epistemic parallels breakdown once one realizes the Hanson issue turns on a definition of a word (president) and the Moon Landing issue does not.

---

I brought that up to point out the fact that what we have been taught to definitively believe does not make it the definitive truth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

It was all a pool feed through NASA. The TV people weren't picking it up direct.

---

Probably true. Feed on not, the other films are not copies of copies, they're original copies of the feed. What can one learn from NASA's footage that can't be learned from the others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deee757

Once again, I already provided a link that shoes you Nasa admitting that footage you saw is reproduction

---

You clearly did not understand what you read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

It was all a pool feed through NASA. The TV people weren't picking it up direct.

---

Probably true. Feed on not, the other films are not copies of copies, they're original copies of the feed. What can one learn from NASA's footage that can't be learned from the others?

---

My link was from yahoo news from an Rss feed from the associated press.

I was taught GW was the first president of the U.S. under the Constitution. So were you. And it's true. By truncating the phrase to "first president" and then reinterpreting it[s] meaning one can argue Hansen was the first president. But that doesn't show we can't be reasonably certain of things. It only shows you can manipulate language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2009AD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deee757

Once again, I already provided a link that shoes you Nasa admitting that footage you saw is reproduction

---

You clearly did not understand what you read.

---

Have u ran out of facts and rebuttals? lol not bad for an ignorant nigger huh? Dont feel bad, i have have three articles published in APA journals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I was taught GW was the first president of the U.S. under the Constitution. So were you. And it's true. By truncating the phrase to "first president" and then reinterpreting it[s] meaning one can argue Hansen was the first president. But that doesn't show we can't be reasonably certain of things. It only shows you can manipulate language.

---

Is my point, in the words of Robert Wuhl, "if legend sounds better than history, teach the legend"
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deee757

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

It was all a pool feed through NASA. The TV people weren't picking it up direct.

---

Probably true. Feed on not, the other films are not copies of copies, they're original copies of the feed. What can one learn from NASA's footage that can't be learned from the others?

---

My link was from yahoo news from an Rss feed from the associated press.

---

Huh? My reference was about the original TV coverage of the landing.

Why would sounding better be a better recommendation than truth? That GW was the first president under the constitution is the truth, not legend. That Hansen was first under some other definition of "first president" is also true. No one's has been shown by your arguement to be teaching legend.

The only thing your example shows is that ambiguous phrases can be interpreted different ways. That little lesson, though true, has no relevance to the issue of the Moon Landing. It not as if you and I have different meanings of the "the Apollo 11 Moon Landing" and under one interpretation it happened and under another it didn't.

sorry, Hippiefried. my misunderstanding.