| Subject: Re: Occam and the faked moon landing Re: Who took the pictures of Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon ? |
| From: Roger |
| Date: 22/01/2005, 02:35 |
| Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.area51,alt.parenting.solutions,alt.sci.physics,talk.politics.space |
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be israel t wrote
in message <87ekgeurev.fsf_-_@kafka.homenet>:
Roger <roger@.> writes:
Applying Occams razor, your explanation is so way out that it is ludricous.
Because you say so?
William of Ockham said, " Do not multiply entities unnecessarily"
( He actually said:"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem".)
Your argument necessitates postulating an entire technology capable of sendin men to the moon.
Do you realise how enormous the infrastructure needed for this is ?
While my simple but elegant argument requires nothing more than movie special effects.
Very special special effects, none of which were available at the
time, and a conspiracy encompassing tens of thousands of people, not
one of which *every* let slip anything in support of the existence of
this conspiracy.
Let's apply the Razor to this, tho: what is the *point* of this hoax,
The Razor is not about intention or even about teleology.
Rather the principle underlies all scientific modelling and theory building.
It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a
given phenomenon the simplest one.
What could be simpler than " It was faked" ?
Of course, you ignore the ramifications of that idiocy.
Which is probably why you snipped my question without so indicating:
what it the *point*? *Why* would such a fake even be considered.
Be careful that you don't make too many assumptions which cannot be
shown: the Razor is poised...
I think the aluminum foil in your colander is developing holes...
I used metallised mylar these days.
Much more reliable.
And my haberdasher is so excellent at inserting it into my hats and coats.