Moonlanding question

[Toptunov]

Last night we gave a party during which we saw the movie "Capricorn One" about a false Marslanding.

Soon after we had un enexpected discussion between two groups of reasearchers, Americans, Britons and Australians who said that the Moonlanding in 1969 was true and Russians, Indians, Arabians and Chineses who claimed that it was only a hollywood invention to overcome Russian supremacy in space race.

When they asked my personal opinion I had to admit all my ignorance about this topic, basically because astronomy is not my field.

But I'm now curious to know whether there are evidencies to support one thesis more than the other one.

Is there anybody who could help me this way?

[Epsilon=One]

...we had unexpected discussion between two groups of reasearchers, Americans, Britons and Australians who said that the Moonlanding in 1969 was true and Russians, Indians, Arabians and Chineses who claimed that it was only a hollywood invention to overcome Russian supremacy in space race.

When they asked my personal opinion I had to admit all my ignorance about this topic, basically because astronomy is not my field.

But I'm now curious to know whether there are evidencies to support one thesis more than the other one.

Is there anybody who could help me this way?Ever since I first heard of this conspiracy theory, I have been intrigued by it.

The more that I've thought about it, the more I've realized how possible it could be.

I have a close relative involved, at the top, with the Mars lander program who seems unable to shed light on the concept . . . either way . . .

My thought, as with most conspiracies, I don't believe it would be possible to keep the "secret" with so many people involved for such a length of time. And, at the time, I don't believe the "moon rocks" could be otherwise obtained; and many independent researchers seem to verify their validity.

Also, the moon is close enough (relatively) that I would assume anyone planning such a hoax would abort because too much of the "trip" might be visible to persons that couldn't be controlled.

Consider though: that, I don't normally buy into any conspiracy theory . . . until 9/11 has forced me to rethink JFK . . .

[Toptunov]

Thanks Y1.

Australian researchers have changed their opinion soon after they were told that the original tape of Moonlanding is actually missing. Thus we have now a rough percentage of 70% believing it false versus 30% considering it true.

As far as I’m concerned the last word in this question will be said after the next Moonlanding, by examining how coincident or different will be the images from the 69’s.

One last suggestion for you, Y1.
Sometimes I notice that you reply to terrible people, used to badly speaking and weakly argumentating. Don’t waiste your precious energies after them: you don’t deserve to be so badly treated and they don’t deserve your smartness.

[OfficeShredder]

I think it has to be true

http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/moon.asp

Apparently, they installed mirrors on the moon, so SOMEONE must have gone there and put them there.

Does that settle the debate?

[Toptunov]

Thank you OfficeShredder.

As far as the debate is concerned it's pretty a useful consideration.

[Epsilon=One]

I think it has to be true

http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/moon.asp

Apparently, they installed mirrors on the moon, so SOMEONE must have gone there and put them there.

Does that settle the debate?Not necessarily. But, it's a good point in the positive column.

As the people involved and their motives, would be in the negative column.

[The Binraker]

I think it has to be true

http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/moon.asp

Apparently, they installed mirrors on the moon, so SOMEONE must have gone there and put them there.

Does that settle the debate?

The mirrors are real, but who is to say that we did not discover them already in place, and covered up their discovery by planning and faking a moon mission? Perhaps ancient astronauts put the mirrors on the moon as part of their survey of Earth......

Will someone please point the Hubble at the moon and look for moon buggy tracks!

[OfficeShredder]

The mirrors are real, but who is to say that we did not discover them already in place, and covered up their discovery by planning and faking a moon mission? Perhaps ancient astronauts put the mirrors on the moon as part of their survey of Earth......

Will someone please point the Hubble at the moon and look for moon buggy tracks!

And how did we discover this mirror array? It's less than 100 feet from where they landed, that's INCREDIBLE precision on the landing crew's part.

[The Binraker]

And how did we discover this mirror array? It's less than 100 feet from where they landed, that's INCREDIBLE precision on the landing crew's part.

You are forgetting......if the landing never took place, there was no "INCREDIBLE percision" involved.

My money is on Hollywood.

[Toptunov]

Dear Binraker,

thank you for your contribution, but I didn't get one aspect.

Do you think that mirrors were put by a machine guided from Earth?

Do you think about disappeared ancient civilizations?

Do you think about a somehow "alien" origin of them?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Last night we gave a party during which we saw the movie "Capricorn One" about a false Marslanding.
Soon after we had un enexpected discussion between two groups of reasearchers, Americans, Britons and Australians who said that the Moonlanding in 1969 was true and Russians, Indians, Arabians and Chineses who claimed that it was only a hollywood invention to overcome Russian supremacy in space race.
When they asked my personal opinion I had to admit all my ignorance about this topic, basically because astronomy is not my field.
But I'm now curious to know whether there are evidencies to support one thesis more than the other one.
Is there anybody who could help me this way?
© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII

Heard it was all done in Sudbury Ontario, because of the way that the Landscape there had been decimated by the residual Acidity eminating from the Ore smelter there..... :eek: (I)'m being :rolleyes:

What about these Moon Rocks (www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/cchoice/moonrocks/moonrocks1.htm) and the very idea that one of the Moon Missions measured the temperature of the Moon and discovered that it was bleeding Heat (Giving off more heat then it recieves due to solar radiation)....did they just make that up??

As for mirrors they could have been sent there robotically...

Personally, as (I) lived through all of the television broadcasting of the event at the time of its' occurance, (I) do believe it is true AND they have been there, no sweat on that 'belief' :cool:

[Epsilon=One]

What about...Moon Rocks...and the very idea that one of the Moon Missions measured the temperature of the Moon and discovered that it was bleeding Heat (Giving off more heat then it recieves due to solar radiation)....did they just make that up??

As for mirrors they could have been sent there robotically...Yes, it is possible; just as the "Moon Rocks" and "Giving off more heat then it recieves" could have been accomplished . . . "robotically."

Personally, as (I) lived through all of the television broadcasting of the event at the time of its' occurance, (I) do believe it is true AND they have been there, no sweat on that 'belief' :cool:The fact that you "lived through all of the television" and "believe it is true" in no way adds to the debate as to whether "they have been there"; thus, your conclusion that "there...(is) no sweat on that 'belief'" would appear to be unwarranted; thus, it is difficult to conclude that you have, in any manner, swayed the debate.

[Toptunov]

Thank you both, Mr Robin Parson and Y1, for your contributions.

Anyway I must ask you a favour, Mr. Robin Parson, hoping you will accept my request.

Please delete the final part of your messages, where you address to Y1.

Remember that human beings should always be treated with respect even if we dislike them.

I read several threads of yours and I often appreciated your original thoughts.

Sometimes I would have also liked to reply in order to enlarge the discussion, but your rage against, in particular, Y1 disgusted and inhibited me.

Please delete the nasty tails of your message, anything could have happened in the past should be left to the past.

Remember Charlie Chaplin's words: "There's enough space for everybody in this World".

You'll surely gain in serenity and number of readers and Y1 could live without the oppressive sensation of hostility.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Thank you both, Mr Robin Parson and Y1, for your contributions.
Anyway I must ask you a favour, Mr. Robin Parson, hoping you will accept my request.
Please delete the final part of your messages, where you address to Y1.
Remember that human beings should always be treated with respect even if we dislike them.
I read several threads of yours and I often appreciated your original thoughts.
Sometimes I would have also liked to reply in order to enlarge the discussion, but your rage against, in particular, Y1 disgusted and inhibited me.
Please delete the nasty tails of your message, anything could have happened in the past should be left to the past.
Remember Charlie Chaplin's words: "There's enough space for everybody in this World".
You'll surely gain in serenity and number of readers and Y1 could live without the oppressive sensation of hostility.Uhmm if you had read enough you would know better why that is all there, so you end up looking like lots of the others who have come here seemingly as shills for EP=0 as all of the invictive is ALWAYS directed against me and NEVER at him even though he is more responsible for this outcome then am (I)....

You miss COMPLETELY my Inner involvement as (I) can only assume you have no understanding of it, hence you wouldn't realize just how important it is for someone like me to KEEP HIM OUT

You say you have read, from the beginning? all of the exchanges between him and (I)? the one where we 'agree to disagree' but soon enough ...he comes back spouting again....

If there is enough space for everyone then (I) too should be able to have one ABSENT of him as (I) fnd he has a great tendancy to be a Noxious Attachment, and better figure out what the rest of my signature really means, that inner thing before you attempt to counsel me in that direction again ....please

No Rage! simply intelligent action as it took till that point simply to stop his Idiotic continuance of responding to me, offensively (Him) too!

That you read it as "rage" tells all about you, as you are recognizing a truth as it arises from within you, not Me! as he is NOT worth the energy of anger, nor worthy of the self-destructive nature of such energies at work on/in the angry person.

(I) am quite serene concerning him (He bothers me little) so long as he KEEPS HIS DISTANCE! (inside & outside)

[Toptunov]

Dear Mr. Robin Parson,

I've got your point but I'm not here to polemize, so if you agree let's come back to the thread's topic.

If I remember correctly last Apollo's mission was at the end of 1972.

There is a particular coincidence friends of mine always repeat: during that year there had been the announcement of the Soviet possibility to check via radio long distance space trips within a year.

In fact since 1974 CCCP was able to track from Earth the space crafts movements and communications.

Dou you think it's a mere casuality or the accidents occured to Apollo 17 were a diplomatic way to quit?

This is truly a cutting edge theory, where the evidencies are almost 50% facing each other.

I'd like the contribution of everybody to improve our common awareness about it.

[Epsilon=One]

...but soon enough ...he comes back spouting again....

If there is enough space for everyone then (I) too should be able to have one ABSENT of him...Yes, I do have a tendency to correct your egregious flaunting of forum rules; as when above, you distort the quotes of others without properly giving notice of the distortions.

Also, you seem to be unaware that this is a public forum for the exchange of topical ideas supported by a modic.um of reason; not a venue for unwarranted petty peeves, histrionics, and private diary entries.

You would have little "spouting" from me to be concerned with if you would cease with invective and distortions.

There are many other places on the internet that should be a better fit for much of your incessant carping.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Dear Mr. Robin Parson,
I've got your point but I'm not here to polemize, so if you agree let's come back to the thread's topic.
If I remember correctly last Apollo's mission was at the end of 1972.
There is a particular coincidence friends of mine always repeat: during that year there had been the announcement of the Soviet possibility to check via radio long distance space trips within a year.
In fact since 1974 CCCP was able to track from Earth the space crafts movements and communications.
Dou you think it's a mere casuality or the accidents occured to Apollo 17 were a diplomatic way to quit?
This is truly a cutting edge theory, where the evidencies are almost 50% facing each other.
I'd like the contribution of everybody to improve our common awareness about it.
© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII

Thank you, and sorry if (I) seemed to strong on it just that, the Inside thing (feeel) is outside of most peoples range of Common knowledge.

As for what you ask, no (I) do not think that any accident was an excuse to stop, given what space travel is about, the Risks involved, stopping when appropo is the right thing to do, especially when robotics can do it without (Or minimizing) risk to human life.

As for the rest, (I) suspect some of your information isn't correct as radar has been around for some time, the DEW line (Distant Early Warning) was set up to track near space objects so (I) would think that the Former USSR had that kind of tech back then, too......but, if (I) have the time, perhaps (I)'ll go check!

Thanks. :cool:

[Toptunov]

You're right, Mr. Robin Parson, about my not good domination of the matter, and that's the main reason, beyond curiosity, why I started this thread: to collect as many informations as I can.

Actually, this is not not my specifical field or research, but friends of mine are quite skilled, so I'm going to tell you what they know.

It was from Krushov-JFK's age that CCCP had the possibility to track a long distant object but only under particular conditions of radio emissions avoiding which Americans could have rendered "invisible" long distance objects.

Soviet propaganda claimed to have a complete long distance control in order to scare the "enemy" by enlarging the truth, but a good intelligence system could have discovered easily it was an "overesteemated" technology.

The "real" technology was improved during Breshnev-Nixon's age so that former USSR could have tracked Apollo's movements until moon only after 1973.

At that time these (and many others) informations were strictly confidential, but we know how efficiently the respective intelligence agencies worked...

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

You're right, Mr. Robin Parson, about my not good domination of the matter, and that's the main reason, beyond curiosity, why I started this thread: to collect as many informations as I can.
Actually, this is not not my specifical field or research, but friends of mine are quite skilled, so I'm going to tell you what they know.
It was from Krushov-JFK's age that CCCP had the possibility to track a long distant object but only under particular conditions of radio emissions avoiding which Americans could have rendered "invisible" long distance objects.
Soviet propaganda claimed to have a complete long distance control in order to scare the "enemy" by enlarging the truth, but a good intelligence system could have discovered easily it was an "overesteemated" technology.
The "real" technology was improved during Breshnev-Nixon's age so that former USSR could have tracked Apollo's movements until moon only after 1973.
At that time these (and many others) informations were strictly confidential, but we know how efficiently the respective intelligence agencies worked...O.K. so the Russians could have tracked them, is that the proof of the actualityof it, that you have been looking for? Or is that just something you threw in?

Personally (I) haven't studied the events as closly as to be able to tell you the sequence of events, but (I) do recall both the Movie and at the time - the news about the Apollo mission that lost it's Oxygen (apollo 13?) and the other 'mishap' wherein there was a very deadly fire (Due to the High Oxygen content of the inner atmosphere of the capsule) abord the capsule on the launch pad that killed all of the training crew members, but if (I) recall it properly they kept on going after that too, so what accidents would you be refering to as to say that is why they stopped them all?

Then again, as we have historic film of the event, AND the people who went there are still alive AND still tell of having done exactly that, 'Landing on the Moons' face' so ....why would anyone doubt it?

[Epsilon=One]

...we have historic film of the event, AND the people who went there are still alive AND still tell of having done exactly that, 'Landing on the Moons' face' so ....why would anyone doubt it?If this is the only proof that you can offer, then it is quite easy to understand why many people "doubt it."

It seems that you have great difficulty understanding the positions of others that differs from your vision of Reality.

[Toptunov]

Dear Y1 and Mr. Robin Parson,

thank you for your contributions to this discussion.

I’ve never found such a controversial question, it’s really stimulating my friends’ curiosity and mine.

Our reflections involve the mass-media role, some international political aims and our natural attitude to believe or to be skeptical about what we are told.

Let us analyze the problem in Kant’ way; the philosopher from Kaliningrad tought how to tackle difficult problems by comparing each statement to its opposite.

Let us summarize what we know as “official” version and what is circulating as “suspect” with their own argumentations.

Thesis1) The Moon landing is easy because Moon is relatively close to Earth.
Antithesis 1) The Moon landing is impossible because Van Allen belt radiations are letal to human beings.

Th2) Ernst Von Braun was turned out of the project because too inefficient to the aim.
Anti2) Ernst Von Braun was turned out of the hoax because too difficult involving him.

Th3) Real trips stopped when USA decided it was useless or too dangerous to go on.
Anti3) Fake trips stopped when USA discovered Russia being on to track them.

Th4) USA was able to to it because its efforts were huge for that purpose, exactly as for Oppenheimer’s team at Los Alamos twenty five years before.
Anti4) USA needed such an extraordinary “coup de theatre”, to relaunch its external image, because in 1969 half the World was turning to socialism, and to get a social cohesion, because the inner riots from colleges to suburbias became raging.

Th5) The astronauts are telling the complete truth about their experiences.
Anti5) The astronauts are telling lies in the National interest because good patriots.

Th6) The great luminosity received by the Moon hid almost all the stars around.
Anti6) To reproduce the exact stars’ placement, even changing around with the space craft movement, was too difficult for the authors of the hoax and exposed to further risky comparisons, so that they invented almost starless a sky.

Th7) The rocks were taken off the Moon also by human hands.
Anti7) The rocks were taken off the Moon only robotically.

Th8) The pictures taken from the Moon are coherent with such an alien scenery.
Anti8) The pictures taken from Moon show some inconsistencies because false.

Th9) The first Moon landing videotape has disappeared from NASA files because everybody lost interest in it years ago.
Anti9) The first Moon landing videotape has disappeared from NASA files because Australian researchers could have noticed something inconsistent by using new technologies of analysis.

Th10) It is impossible to keep a secret like that for so many years having at least 100 people involved.
Anti10) In the name of a supreme scope there have been even larger communities keeping bigger secrets for centuries, and the people really aware of the Moon landing hoax were many less.

There is a further question somehow linked to the above:

Th11) TV and Movies are free subjects which improve democracy and awareness of the public opinion and what they broadcast are always aseptic news.
Anti11) TV and Movies are controlled subjects which keep the establishment by broadcasting manipulated news.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII

ALL of the people who watched the Launch of the rocket here on this planet, and all of the people who have seen the space capsule after it returned.

P.S. Count ME in on that last one, Expo 67 in Montreal the American Pavillion (a Buckminster Fuller Geodesic Sphere structure) had a USED Space Capsule on Display, (Gemini{?}) Visible to the Naked eye effects Scored (burned) onto/into the Outside of the craft, even if was not a Craft that made it to the Moon, it proves that they have been out into 'outer space, believing in the rest, (I) don't find all that difficult, not difficult to believe in at all.....quite credible actually!

[Toptunov]

Dear Mr. Robin Parsons,

thank you for your contribution.

Unluckily "outer space" doesn't necessarily means trespassing Van Allen Belt.

Your reaction resembles mine some months ago, when I was shocked by the hypothesis of a Moon landing hoax.

In the mean time, after talking to several smart friends, I’ve realized that the problem needed to be faced by a different approach that I’d like to share with all our forum-mates.

Let us come back to the origin of science, Galileo’s main parameter to define a scientific truth: “experiences’ reproducibility”.

For the first time after centuries where the main point had been “vox populi vox dei” (more or less “the voice of the people is also God’s speak”), Galileo’s “truth” could be also “paradoxal” (ethimologically “contrary to the mainstream opinion”), so that "objective truth" was set free from the quality and quantity of witnesses to particular events.

It separates the scientific truth, that should be “always reproducible” at pleasure by different subjects and with pasting time, from the religious truth, everyone can chose according to some evidencies we personally retain credible on the basis of what we usually trust.

After this precisation it will be easier to accept that Lunar experiences from 1969 to 1972, ran out with a much lower technology (both to perform it and to describe it), shoud had been easily reproducible next 35 years not only by USA but also by Russia and European ESA.

The more time passes without reproducing it, the more the event “Moon landing” turns to an “act of faith” in the above specified meaning.

Anyway, there will be a turning point for all doubting people.

Within 15 years there should be another Lunar mission, if not by USA at least by China, and after comparing images we’ll finally know if the seventies’ attempts were the magnificent results of an exceptional effort of mankind, or a refined Cold War’s plan, or something else we can’t even imagine now.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Dear Mr. Robin Parsons,thank you for your contribution.
Unluckily "outer space" doesn't necessarily means trespassing Van Allen Belt. IN the way they have gone out into space, yes it does.

Your reaction resembles mine some months ago, when I was shocked by the hypothesis of a Moon landing hoax.Uhmm no it does not, (I) am NOT shocked by the assertion of it being false, (I) actually find that just a little bit laughable...

In the mean time, after talking to several smart friends, I’ve realized that the problem needed to be faced by a different approach that I’d like to share with all our forum-mates.
Let us come back to the origin of science, Galileo’s main parameter to define a scientific truth: “experiences’ reproducibility”.
For the first time after centuries where the main point had been “vox populi vox dei” (more or less “the voice of the people is also God’s speak”), Galileo’s “truth” could be also “paradoxal” (ethimologically “contrary to the mainstream opinion”), so that "objective truth" was set free from the quality and quantity of witnesses to particular events.Objective truth is Known only to/by an 'observer' so it can never be completely separated from "Witness" (Or opinion) and to be seen as 'Quality of truth' Two concording witnesses are preferred...

As for reproducability, well they went there a bit more then Once ...right? that is 'Reproduction'

It separates the scientific truth, that should be “always reproducible” at pleasure by different subjects and with pasting time, from the religious truth, everyone can chose according to some evidencies we personally retain credible on the basis of what we usually trust.
After this precisation it will be easier to accept that Lunar experiences from 1969 to 1972, ran out with a much lower technology (both to perform it and to describe it), shoud had been easily reproducible next 35 years not only by USA but also by Russia and European ESA.So your assertion is that therre were no telescopes watching the event, right?

The more time passes without reproducing it, the more the event “Moon landing” turns to an “act of faith” in the above specified meaning.Faith is the Supporting (Upholding and Maintaining) of a 'Belief' and a Belief by it's very Nature is NOT provable...nor is it really a form of Scientific 'Knowledge'.....and 'act of faith' is therefore acting upon a Belief that is unsupported by ANY evidence as it is an act to the Future which has yet to unfold.

Anyway, there will be a turning point for all doubting people.
Within 15 years there should be another Lunar mission, if not by USA at least by China, and after comparing images we’ll finally know if the seventies’ attempts were the magnificent results of an exceptional effort of mankind, or a refined Cold War’s plan, or something else we can’t even imagine now.

O' Yea of NO faith, NO belief either, in either 'Humans' (Observers & their attestaments) nor 'Physical Evidence'

But the excersize in Philosophy is fun...sorta....

(Your Kant-essque thesis-antithesis needs work)

[Toptunov]

Dear Mr. Robin Parsons,

I think the main purposes to join a forum are: to exchange opinions, to have an intellectual pleasure, to find new friends.

Therefore I’m glad you’re enjoying our philosophical digressions and thank you for appreciating the comparative scheme among different statements I wrote some days ago after many private and public discussions on the topic.

The telescope question is open.

Today, for example, Hubble telescope doesn’t have, yet, a resolution high enough to distinguish objects smaller than a stadium on lunar surface.

We may assume that a space craft landed on the moon, but it would have been impossible to distinguish human beings moving on it, so we are still in the field of hypothesis.

Leaving apart the Moon landing question, if you agree there’s another aspect I’d like to examine: the difference between subjective and objective truths, hoping to involve also other forum-mates in such an interesting debate.

Let us imagine that a person we trust completely (a close friend or relative of ours) should meet an “alien”. We’ll be probably lead to think that UFO exist, but other people with a weaker relationship with such witnesses will consider null their report.

Why? Are they liars? Are they crazy? We don’t know anything about them, they could be the most honest and clever and not influenceable people on Earth, but their report is however doubt to most people who don’t have some particular reason to trust them.

The main point, accoring to scientific approach, is the “reproducibility” of the event. If they were frequent episodes, or somehow obtainable by a certain algorythm (for example calling via radio UFO in a certain way always getting a feedback) it would become an objective truth.

Let us consider another difficult field: religion and miracles.

It is not complete to say that religions and beliefs in general, are based upon the “unprovable”, and they do depend from witnesses.

There have always been some events decribed by someone considered trustable (at the time and by the community) from which each religion sprang out and kept holding.

The problem was the “irreproducibility” of those events, not the lack of witnesses.

The main example of “good quality and quantity witnesses” was for Fatma’s miracle in Portugal (1917) where near 100000 people saw unusual phenomena in the sky, supporting the mystic revelations (one of which involving former USSR’s role and destiny).

Why all the mankind hasn’t turned in to christianity after that? Among the watchers there were lots of reliable people, why don’t trust them?

Unluckily, also the miracles have the limitations to objective truth indicated by Galileo: the irreproducibility.

Going deeper, for example, in a fundamental book like Bible, Saint James was very upset some new adepts of christianity who were disappointed because although praying exactly like the apostoles they didn’t manage to get any God’s help.

To those people Saint James replied that the way they were praying wasn’t correct so that they couldn’t obtain what they wanted.

In a certain way Saint James was suggesting that christianity was an “objective truth” because following the same algorythm (the prays) all the community should have got the same result.

But since the way of praying is personal, it is impossible to create the same universal conditions to relate to God, so even the basic experience of praying can’t be checked as reproductable.

The list of events reported by few or lots of people is neverending, and we could believe everything, if we are good disposed to the human kind, or nothing if our nature is sceptical.

Scientifically speaking both attitudes would be wrong, but it’s a free choice of every man to decide what follow in order to give life a meaning.

A counterexample, when physicists made the terrible mistake to avoid this criteria, was for the case of “cold fusion” found by Pons-Fleischmann.

The scientific community “trusted” two famous researchers without waiting for the necessary reproduction of their results and it was a terrible flop.

So, let us conclude.

There are several truths, and we’re not here to judge which one is “more true”.

The point is that the “scientific truth” needs only one simple necessary condition: the reproductability of experiences at the same conditions.

Other conditions can corroborate it, but are not as necessary.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII

No time to respond now, but might (I) suggest you start a 'new thread' as you are changing topics, you cam include a link to it so we can all follow.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII

try here (physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?p=6514#post6514)

In Logic "The logic of subjective and objective 'proofs' and 'Truths' "