NASA Moonwalker claims alien cover-up

[Saturn V]

"Black" and "White" would tend to make things much more convenient, but I'm old enough to realize that there are varying shades of gray between the two.

As is generally true with any differing points of view.

 

[Urwumpe]

That is not my..."belief."

Yes, and you can believe as much as you want. But it is no science. Believing is not knowing.

Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work. -- James Randi

Believing in invisible things ruins your perception. Once you start with God, you will quickly end up believing in strings and branes. The real road to hell.

 

[Hielor]

"Black" and "White" would tend to make things much more convenient, but I'm old enough to realize that there are varying shades of gray between the two.

As is generally true with any differing points of view.

Belief is not science. There are no shades of gray here.

 

[goop]

Not likely

Ok call me a critic but I do not find his story creditable. He is now 77 and his memory could be fading. In addition there is something that I believed is called Suggestive Memory Recall. Which is if someone suggests and idea it can alter the other persons memory of the event for instance if someone asked if you saw a piece of trash on your front porch you might say yes because that individual has suggested that idea. It is has been a proven phenomenon. If you do not beleive me look it up. In addition I find it hard to beleive that existance of multicelluar extromphiles in a low gravity vaccum is hard not doubt slightly. This also could be a plubicity stunt, a desprate cry for attention. Their countless of expleniations but I found the existance of multicelluar extromophiles in a vacum, low gravity satelite (moon) orbiting the Earth which has a countless arry of telescopes would remain undetected. Even with a goverment conspirancy.
PS: the Aliens must be pretty mad since we purposley crashed a spacecraft into the moon.

Its a Hoax simple

 

[XLR82SPACE]

Well said Saturn V. Religion or Science, momentarily pushing those aside. "Something Started It ALL" Religion and science both are an irrefutable fact of effect after the initial cause. Those out there that want to push science, its philosophies, theories, its finds, plausable explanations, what ever it has produced for man has no bearing what so ever on the true beginning. Without the infinate point of main creation and existance it would only then at that time render the conception of any science. Period! Without a Supreme Creator and his creations only allowed science as a whole to take form to begin with. Science would not exist in any shape form or fashion had a creator not started it all. To refute a supreme creator in any manner, only support any and all ignorance for science as a whole. I rest my case.................. Replying to or quoteing this post is and would only be hurting science. Untill Science itself proves its own conception it will continue to implode on it self with no true meaning or origin.

---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 PM ----------

Oh yea, as for aliens and ufo, if they do at all exist anywhere you can book it we are related and all come from the same point of origin!

 

[eveningsky339]

Is there anything else than a physical universe?

I would say so, yes. However, I believe this for reasons outside of science. I won't try to drag science into the supernatural like some have tried.

 

[insanity]

Well said Saturn V. Religion or Science, momentarily pushing those aside. "Something Started It ALL" Religion and science both are an irrefutable fact of effect after the initial cause. Those out there that want to push science, its philosophies, theories, its finds, plausable explanations, what ever it has produced for man has no bearing what so ever on the true beginning. Without the infinate point of main creation and existance it would only then at that time render the conception of any science. Period! Without a Supreme Creator and his creations only allowed science as a whole to take form to begin with. Science would not exist in any shape form or fashion had a creator not started it all. To refute a supreme creator in any manner, only support any and all ignorance for science as a whole. I rest my case.................. Replying to or quoteing this post is and would only be hurting science. Untill Science itself proves its own conception it will continue to implode on it self with no true meaning or origin.

I think your case is BoguS. It is circular logic. You cannot answer the question of where God came from in the same manner that a scientist cannot answer the question of where the universe came from.

We don't know the answer to the question of our origin and implying that you do implies that your beliefs are correct which leaves no room for even reasonable doubt.

The physical world and the human capacity to manipulate it is the basis for science. I don't think you do science, because if you did then you'd know that science doesn't need a 'meaning' other than the advancement of our knowledge about the universe and how we interact with it.

You're also trying to impose a Semantic God because you seem to feel like god is a singular entity. Writing rubbish like that hurts the case of religious people everywhere.

QED until you can explain the origin of God that isn't an appeal to faith.

Remember that faith implies reason for doubt.

 

[XLR82SPACE]

QED until you can explain the origin of God that isn't an appeal to faith.

Remember that faith implies reason for doubt.

---

---------- Post added at 08:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 PM ----------

This should put a cork in most of it. This is an exert from the biography of the Grandfather of science himself.

The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did".
The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.
Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor.
The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?"
The professor answered, "What kind of question is that? ...Of course the cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?"
The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot."
"And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light."
Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil."
The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man."
After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back. The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN.
​

I don't know about you, but I came from no ape. Darwinism was thrown with yesterdays trash by his own students years later. To bad he never listened to the father of science himself. Just like alot of others out there. All his work, his legacy was shame in the end. Because of bad choices in his life he will one day like many others out there reap what he sowed.

 

[eveningsky339]

Remember that faith implies reason for doubt.

"To know with certainty, we must begin by doubting." Polish Proverb

How can anyone know that there is, say, God, if one doesn't have room for doubt? There would be no reason to question falsehoods without doubt.

 

[Hielor]

---

---------- Post added at 08:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 PM ----------

This should put a cork in most of it. This is an exert from the biography of the Grandfather of science himself.

The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did".
The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.
Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor.
The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?"
The professor answered, "What kind of question is that? ...Of course the cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?"
The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot."
"And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light."
Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil."
The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man."
After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back. The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN.
​

I don't know about you, but I came from no ape. Darwinism was thrown with yesterdays trash by his own students years later. To bad he never listened to the father of science himself. Just like alot of others out there. All his work, his legacy was shame in the end. Because of bad choices in his life he will one day like many others out there reap what he sowed.

Once again you take falsehoods and present them as truths without backing them up.

For that quote of yours: http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp (short version: No, that wasn't Einstein. You parrot a false tale without bothering to verify its truth). Regardless, if evil is the absence of God's presence, then the myth of the Christian God is immediately untrue, as Christianity claims that God is everywhere.

Darwinism was not "thrown with yesterdays trash by his own students years later," or, if it was, it should be fairly easy for you to present proof of that. Which makes more sense:
A) Mankind came into being fully developed, sneezed into existence by a being which hasn't been seen or heard from sense, or
B) Mankind is the result of an extremely slow (and continuing) process of tiny, incremental adaptations which over the course of billions of years have resulted in the diversity that we now see around us.
One of these makes sense, logically and rationally. One of these is the stuff of tales told to children. Which is which?

Moreover, what makes the Christian mythos any more valid than the Muslim one? Or a Native American one?

 

[Saturn V]

And getting back to the topic that brought us all here, if we're as well aquainted with Edgar Mitchell's background as some posts would lead one to believe (damn! there's that word again!), then surely we're aware that his lifelong personal struggle was reconciling science with the idea of something greater than us at work.

Though I accept much of the science I've learned over the last 50 years, it does NOT by any stretch of the imagination demand that I give up my beliefs either.

Hence, I am not as torn by the incongruities as Mr. Mitchell is. I have no burning desire to reconcile or make sense of it all and can comfortably accept my spirituality along with my scientific interest.

You can define either however you like, but I stand by my assertion that the two are NOT mutually exclusive. Or perhaps I should say that they don't HAVE to be, unless you choose to make them so.

When you close your mind, nothing else can get in...

 

[Kaito]

Can someone explian to me why a mod or someone hasn't cleaned up this thread to get it back on track, or just fully locked it? It's supposed to be about how an Apollo 14 astronaut claims there was an Alien.

 

[Hielor]

And getting back to the topic that brought us all here, if we're as well aquainted with Edgar Mitchell's background as some posts would lead one to believe (damn! there's that word again!), then surely we're aware that his lifelong personal struggle was reconciling science with the idea of something greater than us at work.

Though I accept much of the science I've learned over the last 50 years, it does NOT by any stretch of the imagination demand that I give up my beliefs either.

Hence, I am not as torn by the incongruities as Mr. Mitchell is. I have no burning desire to reconcile or make sense of it all and can comfortably accept my spirituality along with my scientific interest.

You can define either however you like, but I stand by my assertion that the two are NOT mutually exclusive. Or perhaps I should say that they don't HAVE to be, unless you choose to make them so.

When you close your mind, nothing else can get in...

The two are mutually exclusive in singular cases. An explanation for X is either scientifically based, or belief-based. There is no possibility for it to be both.

The ability to learn science without giving up beliefs is not what's being discussed, and never has been.

 

[Nerull]

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

Albert Einstein. And not fabricated.

Will you put your money where your mouth is, and listen to him?

 

[XLR82SPACE]

Ok, I accept that, everyone has his valid points. Those who choose to profess to come from ape, I guess I'll see your cousin at the local zoo next time I take my kids. As for myself I will choose to continue to believe I came from God and his omnipotent glory. (Websters - God , n. supreme Being, creator and ruler of the universe; divine Being.) Since I believe in God. His words in scripture to unbelievers.
"I hear but I hear not, I see but I see not. Don't cast your pearls before swine, let the blind lead the blind." God created me not some monkey.
I've enjoyed it, so see you another day.

 

[Saturn V]

Can someone explian to me why a mod or someone hasn't cleaned up this thread to get it back on track, or just fully locked it? It's supposed to be about how an Apollo 14 astronaut claims there was an Alien.

Because a topic like that will inevitably lead to a conversation that will meander in the same direction this thread has taken. And I don't see that it's gotten ugly. Whether you're on the fence or on either side of it, the discussion seems to have remained civil.

Personally, I think some of Mitchell's assertions are pretty unorthodox (to say the least). But I'm open to the possibility that he may be right.

On the other hand, I'm not going to jump on any bandwagon proclaiming that he is.

---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 PM ----------

An explanation for X is either scientifically based, or belief-based. There is no possibility for it to be both.

I beg to differ. I have no problem in accepting the "big bang" theory. But that very idea begs the question: what precipitated it?

An answer, whether cloaked in fire and brimstone or cold hard fact has not and can not be proven conclusively by either camp.

How much of what we "knew" 100 years ago has been proven wrong?

Again, I'm just open to the possibilities...

 

[Hielor]

Ok, I accept that, everyone has his valid points.

Some people actually don't have valid points, or at least, they refuse to validate them. All I'm asking is that you present proofs or evidence for your assertions.

As for myself I will choose to continue to believe I came from God and his omnipotent glory. (Websters - God , n. supreme Being, creator and ruler of the universe; divine Being.) Since I believe in God. His words in scripture to unbelievers.
"I hear but I hear not, I see but I see not. Don't cast your pearls before swine, let the blind lead the blind." God created me not some monkey.
I've enjoyed it, so see you another day.

Yes, that is the definition of the word "God," but that doesn't mean that Webster's is saying that God exists, if that's what you're trying to imply.

Let's look at this God of yours. According to the Christian mythos, God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent. Okay, we'll start from there.

Let's take it as a fact that "bad things happen to good people." Given the family-friendly nature of this forum, I'll modify my usual example and present the following situation.

You are walking down the street, and you hear a call for help from an alley. You peer into the alley and see a child of 10 or so being mugged by a pair of much older thugs. The child is defenseless, and as you watch, one of the two strikes the child hard to silence her for calling out. The child whimpers.

Similar situations happen all around the world, every day. Let us say that you, for whatever reason and in whatever way, have the power to stop this situation (the manner in which you are able to stop the situation is irrelevant).
You have two choices:
A) Walk away and let the two have their way with the child, ignoring the situation.
B) Stop the situation.

Can we agree that B) in this case is the benevolent thing to do, and A) is at best apathetic and at worst malevolent? Which would you choose?

Now, if we take as a given that God is both all-powerful and all-knowing, then He cannot not be all-benevolent, because despite knowing of the thousands of these incidents which happen all over the world each minute and being capable of stopping them, He does nothing. He always chooses A. If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then evidence we have in reality shows that he is also not all-benevolent. An apathetic God is as good as no God at all, and a malevolent one...oh man.

If we take as a given that God is indeed all-benevolent, we must reconcile the fact that He always chooses A. This means that He is either unable to stop the situation and cannot choose B (and is thus not all-powerful), or that He is unaware of the situation (and thus not all-knowing).

Given that Christianity posits the existence of a God which is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good, and given the evidence we have in reality that such a being does not exist, it would be only logical to conclude that the Christian mythos is not correct.

---------- Post added at 07:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 PM ----------

I beg to differ. I have no problem in accepting the "big bang" theory. But that very idea begs the question: what precipitated it?

An answer, whether cloaked in fire and brimstone or cold hard fact has not and can not be proven conclusively by either camp.

An explanation which invokes the existence of a supreme being is an explanation based on belief. An explanation which posits the existence of some scientific phenomenon not yet known is not.

The scientific explanation can be disproven. The faith explanation cannot. That is the fundamental difference between science and faith: science is falsifiable. We know that X is true, because if X were not true, we would have Y evidence. Or, X might be true, but if Y evidence shows up, then we know that X is not true.

Faith-based explanations are not falsifiable, and as such, are not scientific.

How much of what we "knew" 100 years ago has been proven wrong?

Precisely.

 

[insanity]

Ok, I accept that, everyone has his valid points. Those who choose to profess to come from ape, I guess I'll see your cousin at the local zoo next time I take my kids. As for myself I will choose to continue to believe I came from God and his omnipotent glory. (Websters - God , n. supreme Being, creator and ruler of the universe; divine Being.) Since I believe in God. His words in scripture to unbelievers.
"I hear but I hear not, I see but I see not. Don't cast your pearls before swine, let the blind lead the blind." God created me not some monkey.
I've enjoyed it, so see you another day.

You didn't answer my question. Also, you are almost surely the descendant of an ape. You are also the descendant of one-celled organisms from billions of years ago... in that sense you are connected to every living organism on the planet- you should enjoy how darn amazing that is. Before you go spewing your religion as the be-all end-all truth you should consider how that attitude has destroyed so many lives.

To get this on-topic:
I have no idea about the existence of other life, but if they are there I'm guessing they are light years away and really don't know/care that we live on this giant rock.

 

[Shadow Addict]

There should be some kind of Internet law dictating that any conversation that goes on long enough will eventually dissolve into a political or religious argument.

 

[Moonwalker]

Mixing up science with belief is illogical. The one thing doesn't have anything to do with the other one. Science is a technique to gain and increase our knowledge-base. Belief is an individual psychological state.

People can claim the existence of aliens (like Nina Hagen or Edgar Mitchell does for example), god and other things all the time. But it has that much to do with science than an apple with mercury for example -> nothing.http://www.daserste.de/beckmann/sendung_dyn~uid,aed4q4dvcqcn1yaff2cchk2o~cm.asp