NASA Moonwalker claims alien cover-up

[Urwumpe]

To shorten the research, since it was not really a mystery after the second orbital flight and appeared on all later manned missions:

Carpenter had been specifically tasked with trying to observe and photograph the particles reported by Glenn. And though he had earlier sightings -- "I have the fireflies," he affirmed -- the proof he needed came during his third orbit, again just after sunrise.



"Ah, beautiful lighted fireflies that time," reported Carpenter to the ground. "I have the fireflies they are very bright. They are capsule-emanating. I can rap the hatch and stir off hundreds of them. Rap the side of the capsule, huge streams come out. They -- some appear to glow."


"Some appear to glow but I don't believe they really do, it's just the light of the sun," he continued. Carpenter soon identified the source of his and Glenn's traveling partners. "They are little tiny white pieces of frost. I judge from this that the whole side of the capsule must have frost on it."


Glenn's "fireflies" became Carpenter's "frost-flies" or snowflakes. Condensation gathered on the outside of their spacecraft as they passed from the cold night into the warm day and then froze again, creating a layer of frost. As the spacecraft passed through sunrise, the flakes would liberate from the spacecraft, sometimes assisted by the motion of the astronaut inside.

 

[JEL]

With belief, you blindly accept that something is true without seeking the truth of it, and often refuse to accept any evidence that suggests otherwise. You don't think it needs to be proven, because it's self-evident (to you).

With science, you actually seek out to prove that the thing is true...

Since the observable world relates entirely to the observer, the conclusions the observer draws about it will always be based on belief.

Belief in one's own senses to present yourself with the real truth and not a skewed truth (which it obviously always will be, skewed, since your senses will always color what you see)

For all you know, Hielor, you could be a mental patient hallucinating everything you experience and feel is real, while actually being locked away in a hospital placed on a flat world with a real hell underneath

The probability that your perception apparatus is wrong can never be zero, and thus you can never have actual proof that you really defend the actual truth. You might in fact be defending a wrong perception given to you by a malfunctioning mind that you are not self-aware of is malfunctioning. Even if you believe completely that you see the real truth. It still ends up being just a belief

That is why science must never be viewed as ABSOLUTE in any way. It's NOT the absolute truth. It's a perceived truth. A relative truth. A subjective truth. And every single thinking being must, by definition, have it's own perception of what exists. Some see's god, some does not. And that's fine. The world is big enough for both.

There is no conflict as long as we're all free to believe what we want

Atleast that is what I believe

 

[insanity]

That is why science must never be viewed as ABSOLUTE in any way. It's NOT the absolute truth. It's a perceived truth. A relative truth. A subjective truth. And every single thinking being must, by definition, have it's own perception of what exists. Some see's god, some does not. And that's fine. The world is big enough for both.

There is no conflict as long as we're all free to believe what we want

Bingo!

No self-respecting scientist would talk in absolute terms- it just supplies evidence that explains phenomena. It leaves room for uncertainty.

 

[Moonwalker]

Since the observable world relates entirely to the observer, the conclusions the observer draws about it will always be based on belief.

Which is an old buddhistic world view.

In the first place, belief is a psychological state. I don't think that you would, for example, downplay the holocaust/genocide to belief of observers, or downplay natural disasters and the universe on the whole to belief. The universe doesn't care about belief. It existed way before there was humans who think the just belief rather than observe.

Belief is one thing. Reality, that effects any being and its environment, is another one. Even for those who suffer from delusion and think they live in a world that is "just" based on belief. Reality does hurt sometimes. That may be the reason why so many people, especially religous or spiritual ones, are afraid of science. Truth can hurt peoples belief.

There is no conflict as long as we're all free to believe what we want

Atleast that is what I believe

There is no conflict as long as people don't mix up belief with science. People really have to keep in mind that true science hasn't something to do with belief. That the ISS is orbiting the Earth for example is not only observable, but a stone cold fact, based on stone cold scientific knowledge and hard physical work and brain work.

 

[Hielor]

Since the observable world relates entirely to the observer, the conclusions the observer draws about it will always be based on belief.

Belief in one's own senses to present yourself with the real truth and not a skewed truth (which it obviously always will be, skewed, since your senses will always color what you see)

For all you know, Hielor, you could be a mental patient hallucinating everything you experience and feel is real, while actually being locked away in a hospital placed on a flat world with a real hell underneath

The probability that your perception apparatus is wrong can never be zero, and thus you can never have actual proof that you really defend the actual truth. You might in fact be defending a wrong perception given to you by a malfunctioning mind that you are not self-aware of is malfunctioning. Even if you believe completely that you see the real truth. It still ends up being just a belief

That is why science must never be viewed as ABSOLUTE in any way. It's NOT the absolute truth. It's a perceived truth. A relative truth. A subjective truth. And every single thinking being must, by definition, have it's own perception of what exists. Some see's god, some does not. And that's fine. The world is big enough for both.

There is no conflict as long as we're all free to believe what we want

Atleast that is what I believe

Which is why, in science, one person's claims are never taken as truth until they have been independently verified by others.

 

[Moonwalker]

Which is why, in science, one person's claims are never taken as truth until they have been independently verified by others.

Well, buddhists claim that everything only exists because observer exist and do observe. Once there is no observer anymore, the universe won't exist anymore as well...

Of course in a certain sense this is not really wrong. If there is no observer anymore nobody won't observe and experience. But the universe won't care and continue to exist like it did already billions of years before there were observer -> humans. But such a world view sadly often is used to depreciate science, objectivity and reality. It's all just an "illusion". People who deeply believe in it really must have problems with daily life/suffer from a trauma...

 

[tblaxland]

^ It should be pointed out that an "observer" need not be sentient, or even alive. An electron can be "observed" by a photon, for example.

 

[kneejo]

There is no conflict as long as we're all free to believe what we want

Atleast that is what I believe

uhm.. so if the gods come down to start-up armageddon you'd be quite surprised, or would you simply interpret it differently?

The fact that science can't proof yet that something like God, who is a living being without a physical body, can exist, is in my opinion a failure in science, which is another belief anyway.

without the gods, and without humans striving to be better than one another we might have a conflict-free worlds. But then, the gods believe they own us, so we will always be part of their wars.. humans have the potential to be better than these gods.. if we choose to.

---------- Post added at 06:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:30 AM ----------

It's all just an "illusion". People who deeply believe in it really must have problems with daily life/suffer from a trauma...

That's why I see many religions as accepted mass-psychoses.. not every religion, but many..

What is psychoses anyway?/ nothing more than a difference in opinion about what reality is. Unfortunately, society does not accept what it cannot understand, scientists included.. so special people will always have a difficult life.. not accepted by humans because they are feared or ridiculed, and not accepted by God because he doesn't appreciate competition, even when the goals are the same.

 

[Hielor]

The fact that science can't proof yet that something like God, who is a living being without a physical body, can exist, is in my opinion a failure in science, which is another belief anyway.

Why is this a failure in science?

If you believe in unicorns, and science can't prove that unicorns exist, is that a failure in science?

 

[Urwumpe]

The fact that science can't proof yet that something like God, who is a living being without a physical body, can exist, is in my opinion a failure in science, which is another belief anyway.

Science also can't prove the existence of invisible pink unicorns. Epic failure.

How can you prove something, that is not observable?

And why should science prove Gods existence? There is no observation of God to start with. Can you experimentally prove God, like making him to appear when you want to?


It is no failure of science, that it fails to prove God's existence. It is a failure of religion, to indoctrinate the existence of something, that you can't experience. How can you tell that you are worshiping God and not the devil?

The invisible and the not-existing, are pretty much alike.

 

[jedidia]

"God has proven to me that he exists", says the believer.
"So, any way to reproduce that proof reliably?" asks the scientist
"Afraid not", says the believer, "everyone has to experience God himself".
"Well," replies the scientist, "then you can hardly call it proof, can you?"
"Sure I can call it proof", defends the believer, "I know what happened to me".
"So, what should I do, then?" inquires the scientist.
"Well, you'll have to take my word for it," replies the believer. "What reason would I have to lie to you?"
"I could think of a few," murmurs the scientist. "besides, it's unscientific. I can't believe things just on the basis of word of mouth."
"So," inquires the believer, "do you have proof of quantum mechanics?"
"sure!" says the scientist proudly, "here are the formulae. And here's a little experiment you can do!"
"errr..." replies the believer, a bit taken aback, "I'm not too hot at math. And that experiment needs tons of equipement that sounds pretty expensive."
"Naturally", explains the scientist, "you'll have to study a few years, and aply for some funds to do the experiment."
"What?" exclaims the believer, "I have a wife and children, I can't afford doing that all!"
"Weeell", says the scientist understandingly, "Then you'll just have to take my word for it. I was there, saw the experiment, did all the math and can tell you it's all perfectly fine. What reason would I have to lie to you?"
"Well, I could think of a few!" replies the believer briskly and trods off.

 

[Moonwalker]

There is no reason why natural science should try to explain an unobservable fictive world (or person like god) that principally exists in some peoples imagination. Natural science is not about individual abstract belief and imagination. It is about the physical nature we all live in. For abstract belief and imagination we have philosopher, spiritual/esoteric and religous people, or humane discipline if you will.

 

[Ghostrider]

How can you tell that you are worshiping God and not the devil?

If you were worshipping the devil, your bank account would probably double.

 

[dansteph]

"Well, I could think of a few!" replies the believer briskly and trods off.

Then he walk back to his car while watching an airplane passing and listening a good church music downloaded from the net on his ipod. All things that required era of sciences. :lol:

Dan

 

[Tschachim]

...
"So," inquires the believer, "do you have proof of quantum mechanics?"
"sure!" says the scientist proudly, "here are the formulae. And here's a little experiment you can do!"
"errr..." replies the believer, a bit taken aback, "I'm not too hot at math. And that experiment needs tons of equipement that sounds pretty expensive."

Well, nice story, but laziness isn't a really good argument for ignorance, is it?

 

[Ghostrider]

I may be the exception here, but I never witnessed much animosity between the science and religion camps. Actually, my best science teacher was a Jesuit, who was absolutely passionate about research and did a great job inspiring some misguided youth.
Of course, a lot of stuff he taught involved sparks, fire, explosions and clouds of noxious gases so how couldn't we be not hooked...

 

[Hielor]

"God has proven to me that he exists", says the believer.
"So, any way to reproduce that proof reliably?" asks the scientist
"Afraid not", says the believer, "everyone has to experience God himself".
"Well," replies the scientist, "then you can hardly call it proof, can you?"
"Sure I can call it proof", defends the believer, "I know what happened to me".
"So, what should I do, then?" inquires the scientist.
"Well, you'll have to take my word for it," replies the believer. "What reason would I have to lie to you?"
"I could think of a few," murmurs the scientist. "besides, it's unscientific. I can't believe things just on the basis of word of mouth."
"So," inquires the believer, "do you have proof of quantum mechanics?"
"sure!" says the scientist proudly, "here are the formulae. And here's a little experiment you can do!"
"errr..." replies the believer, a bit taken aback, "I'm not too hot at math. And that experiment needs tons of equipement that sounds pretty expensive."
"Naturally", explains the scientist, "you'll have to study a few years, and aply for some funds to do the experiment."
"What?" exclaims the believer, "I have a wife and children, I can't afford doing that all!"
"Weeell", says the scientist understandingly, "Then you'll just have to take my word for it. I was there, saw the experiment, did all the math and can tell you it's all perfectly fine. What reason would I have to lie to you?"
"Well, I could think of a few!" replies the believer briskly and trods off.

The difference here is that the scientist actually offers proof, even if it may require fancy equipment.

The believer offers no such proof.

 

[Moonwalker]

I may be the exception here, but I never witnessed much animosity between the science and religion camps.

There is no real animosity indeed. The majority of scientists are able to distinguish between science and belief. Also the christian church i.e. the vatican has arrived in the 20th and 21th century and recognised the priority of science for humankind for a long time already. It is just individuals, mostly full-scale non-scientists I've met who, for some reason, are not able to distinguish between science and believe and always tend to mix it up within discussions. But within the scientific communities, natural sciences, humane disciplines, theology, there is no real animosity. The usual differences in opinion is about moral and ethics related to, for example, how far genetics should progress.

People could wonder how many NASA scientists and astronauts actually do belief. But they all distinguish between job/science and belief

 

[jedidia]

The believer offers no such proof.

Yes and no. The believer could tell the scientist to try a few sincere prayers to God to show himself, and see if anything happens. Would the scientist do that? Some may, some may not. The Point of the story was neither to mock the scientist nor the believer. I wrote it to show that even objective scientific proof can be subjective in a way.

Well, nice story, but laziness isn't a really good argument for ignorance, is it?

Calling people lazy for not being scientists is not quite fair. And modern sciense involves such a huge load of knowledge, abilities and education that, in the end, a simple person (like myself) just has to take a word for it. I have no problem with that, because I generaly trust Scientists. But my acceptance of science is majorly based on that trust I have into the concept. It is VERY subjective. Take that trust away, and I wouldn't believe half of what I believe.

Then he walk back to his car while watching an airplane passing and listening a good church music downloaded from the net on his ipod. All things that required era of sciences.

This, on the other hand, is one of the few convincing arguments. Science proofs itself in practical application. Most of it, anyways. It shouldn't be surprising that the most animosity arises about theories that a) touch a sensitive subject and b) don't have any practical use. Of which evolution is a prime example (no, please, I don't want the topic to wander of to creationism, I too think it's pretty much mumbo jumbo. It's just the most prominent example)

There is no real animosity indeed.

There was a nice book by a certain Richard Dawkins recently that gives a few hints to the oposite

Anyways, the whole point of my post was to shed light on one point: Why many religious people think scientists arrogant, and why many scientists think many religious people ignorant. They simply don't talk the same language. I understand both sides (being involved with and loving both) and as such am always trying to get the one to understand the other.

 

[Hielor]

Yes and no. The believer could tell the scientist to try a few sincere prayers to God to show himself, and see if anything happens. Would the scientist do that? Some may, some may not. The Point of the story was neither to mock the scientist nor the believer. I wrote it to show that even objective scientific proof can be subjective in a way.

This is still unsatisfactory.

The scientist can give someone all of the procedures to reproduce the situation exactly and observe the results for themselves.

The believer can tell the scientist to "try a few prayers," and the result may or may not be the same.