Because amid the excitement elections ohotnoryadtsy I continue to be interested prosaic things such lunar fraud USA, a professional scientist (in this case, it is important), Sigismund Mironin sent me his stuff on this subject. This material is interesting that Mironin investigated unexpected (to me) side of this scam. But since Mironin too academic, I cut his stuff in the hope that from this material will be more accessible to people, do not do science, in addition, removed references to 28 scientific sources, and something in the text are highlighted. So, my word Mironinu.
Faith in Science
It is believed that the Americans flying to the moon is one of the outstanding achievements of mankind. For a long time, the fact of visiting the moon by the Americans is not questioned. However, in recent years there has been many publications, which indicated that the evidence presented by the Americans flying or falsified, or totally convincing. The most interesting thing that doubts have arisen with the first flight. In 1970 he published a book of American mathematician J. Krajina, in which he had already put into question the fact that the landing. In 1976, American writer B. Keysing published a book, "We have never been to the Moon." Most interesting is that the poll conducted in 1970 and 1976. Showed that the percentage of those doubting the reality of landings was high and before the book Keysinga. But officials did everything they could to those books and such doubts did not reach the general public.
Mukhin, Renee, Popov and suede in the most complete form to summarize all the material and found a lot of inconsistencies. These authors exhaustively reviewing all pictures, all the articles in the lunar soil, all evidence of flying to the moon, spacecraft and rockets … and find that none of the evidence are not conclusive. In this case Popov and Mukhina virtually no overlap. Much new in these proceedings brought Newbie S.G.Kara-Murza S. Pokrovsky. Their research is in a network, and if someone has the desire, they can be read. So I will not be here to disassemble themselves evidence of flight.
Although I have no objection to the logic Mukhina, Popov, velor and Pokrovsky, but I'm no expert on these matters. So I asked myself, Sigismund, and whether such a trait that would help judge the flight and non-experts on engines, the lunar soil, the corner reflector, cone … It turned out that this approach exist. This requirement of the formal sciences to prove his priority in scientific (or otherwise) the opening.
Need an algorithm to assess the accuracy of the information. Science has developed it. This is a scientific article that criticize several independent, anonymous ("black") experts.
Scientific journals are almost always obtained by sending an article to two, and in severe cases three independent experts. Experts scrutinize the material, if necessary ask the author to provide additional evidence, and only when they are convinced that the evidence provided does prove the fact of scientific discovery, they give approval for publication. For example, I want to prove that the cell moves. I'm making a movie about it, and then describe in detail how I did it. Next I'm doing the film measurements. Then write an article. In the article there is a section "Material and Methods." Send in a peer-reviewed journal. Magazine sends me my article unknown reviewer. He carefully looks for errors in the article. At his request, I shall submit any pictures, and in the original. After the review and publication of such an article a person who is not an expert in the field of micro-video, can with a certain probability to believe my results (or may not believe).
Now a few words about what you can believe and what not. In science, believe only peer-reviewed scientific articles, and then with great care. The fact is recognized only when another independent group shows, often using a different method, that the fact exists. As long articles published in the same group may even be quoted, but these facts are not generally accepted.
Believe research articles can be greater than reported in the press. In science, too, are fake, but very rarely. In general, the articles published in scientific journals, can be trusted more than the articles in the media. From the point of view of formal science, a fact not valid as of this fact does not appear memoir.
Neither the dissertation or monograph, no scientific reports of the formal sciences are not recognized and are generally not cited. Moreover, science fact finally acknowledged the fact, only if confirmed by independent researchers. By the way, in the history of fact requires independent verification.
What is the mission to the moon?
How can classify Americans flying to the moon? Moon was known until 1969, but the specific areas where the allegedly visited the Americans were not known. So their flight can be classified as a geographic (or rather, lunograficheskoe) opening. On the other hand, their flight can be classified as achieving a particular mountain peak climbers. The top is known and before the rise, but there is no one had yet visited. Finally, their mission is similar to the situation and reach the North and South Pole. In all these cases, if someone had been there first, he must prove that he's been there.
When explorers reached the summit of Mount Everest, they're left pennants and whatnot, then to another group found these banners, and confirmed that these were the first climbers. If someone is trying to reach the North Pole, he finds himself in the most difficult situation, since the only evidence — this is the compass. No traces remain, because the ice drift. Simply submarine that could put at the North Pole pennant under water. But as long as the mission of another country does not find this pennant, this fact is nothing more than gossip.
Defenders argue that the mission to the moon — not a scientific event.
But for some reason flying ship "Gemini" was scientific event. When I began to look for the results of operations "Gemini" I'm easy to find, and many of them were published in the journal Science (Nature), a leading scientific journal.
Current believers in flying to the moon trying to make out that the Americans have proven that they were flying, and the doubters have to prove that Americans are not flying.
No, science is not so! That I, as a pioneer, to prove that I have discovered something. If I'm a skeptic, the discoverer shall make me believe their discovery. He argues that he had discovered, or are engaged naukovedy and historians of science then. Without scientific assessment is nothing more than gossip. For example, the opening of the Victoria Falls in the scientific discoverer wrote Geographic Magazine, where his evidence was evaluated black reviewers.
If you have two high jumper, one jumped up to 2 m, and the second — by 3 meters, can you doubt the achievement of the first but not the second? Besides, if no one else, not only for the next 40 years could not take 3 m, but even he did it again never could, and sneakers, in which he jumped, somewhere mysteriously disappeared! And the film, which recorded the fact of a jump shot in a way that it can not see anything, and then disappeared from the film carefully guarded vault.
Therefore, because Americans supposedly made a discovery which, in essence, similar to the geographical discovery, they would have to take your stuff and write a scientific article in which they presented evidence that they were on the moon. The experts of the scientific journal would be carefully analyzed the evidence, and making sure their evidential force, would give the nod to the publication. Then demonstrative pictures of flying could be taken only from the published article, and then responsible for the observed then lies (if it was later discovered) was carrying a scientific journal.
Is there any scientific papers that prove the fact of the flight to the Moon?
Let us approach the matter from a formal scientific perspective.
A huge number of articles on the lunar soil is not direct evidence, nor are they, and biomedical research astronauts.
For lunar missions key evidence — a photo-and film documents. Accordingly, the installation of at least one of them calls into question all the other evidence, since the priority of Americans passed scientific review. Therefore, the presence of forgeries in the illustrative material about the flight, no matter what the reasons were that does not allow me to believe that the Americans were flying to the moon.
There is a fact, there is evidence of the fact on the sites of NASA, there are doubters inhabitants. What to do in such a situation? Usually a normal scientist, if he was accused of forging any evidence, must provide evidence that it is not. Written even special research papers, where the scientist fighting off charges and the same or different methods of proving that he was right.
Meanwhile, in the prestigious scientific literature failed to detect any articles with an analysis of the actual material of human presence on the Moon.
Have the results of medical research astronauts before and after the flight, although they are mostly in the magazines is not very high scientific level. For example, during the discussion at the forum S.G.Kara-Murza I found an article about the study of immune system of astronauts allegedly flew to the moon. This paper, which examines blood astronauts 45 days before the flight, after 1 day of recovery and then a fence after the flight, but not during the flight. But there is no evidence that this is associated with a flight to the moon.
This, I may say, scientific work sostryapana by allegedly made some measurements of the astronauts 'Apollo', and I began to understand why they were not able to publish it in a scientific journal. This work was the third chapter in a monograph published on the website of NASA biomedical flight results "Apollo." There was a solid lime. On page 212 Figure 3-7 shows skaniruyushie electron microscopic images of red blood cells of human blood. For me, a cell biologist, tuftovost these photos erythrocytes visible at first sight. Nowhere in the text does not describe how prepared these tests, what method was used, and fixing what they considered different forms of red blood cells. In general, this section of the work was written at the level of 3-year medical school student. Members of the circle of my students at the time it is better written. The most interesting thing — this chapter cited in 36 other works, but the 36 works, in turn, is cited in 633 other works!
An interesting selection of literature, which is referred to the author. According to advocates, this book is full of references. It really hammered them to the eyeballs, but references something wrong. No there is in these two chapters, references to the works in the scientific journals in which these results have been published to this monograph. There is only reference methods. Thus, the authors have broken a rule, adopted in the international community — to publish primary research results in scientific journals with a closed peer review. The problem with this article and the similarity is that biomedical research after a flight is not a proof.
Next. I'm not lazy, and using PubMed system where all the articles of scientific journals on biology and medicine starting sometime in 1960, did some Science-metrical study. PubMed provides the ability to view abstracts and book articles. Typing keywords, I got 86 links (Total 86: ApolloANDmedical). Very cool — it turned out that the basic medical and biological aspects of the flight, "Apollo" for some reason described in the Italian language, which most of the scientific community is unfamiliar. The results of operations for "Apollo" to landing on the moon, too, for some reason, in Italian. English links are those where the evidence generally stay on the Moon was not there.
For those who did not understand the piece, explain. Currently, the vast majority of the scientific archive is written in English. Before the fall of the Soviet Union occupied a prominent place Russian. Before World War II there were three major scientific languages — English, German and Russian, which they began sometime before the war. Italian has never been a language of science, and how-to articles on it never cited and are not subject to critical review by the scientific community. I also note that once again there is no reason in PubMede available to read summaries of the articles. Only published abstracts. Meanwhile, easy to find the results of medical examinations of astronauts who flew on the "World", after the Soviet flights, even after the flight, "Skylab".
Then I started looking for the original original articles on the reference lists in the books. I found on the Internet seems to be a scientific book, Brooks, C. G, Grimwood, JM, and Swenson, LS Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft. Watched literature chapters (Chapter 14 is devoted to flying to the moon), and again did not find journal articles. References only to reports. But if they were original research papers, then, by the rules of science, decided to quote the articles where the discovery is made, or at least review articles, and then by review articles you can find the original article.
Another interesting site that points to Wikipedia in his article on "Apollo -11". There, too, there are no references to peer-reviewed journals, which would have been described in the scientific results of the medical examination of astronauts and other scientific results of the flight.
If we go to the site http://www.answers.com/topic/project-apollo, which seems to answer questions about the flight, again there is no scientific articles. Finally, if you go to the site http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999nvm..conf … 56S, it appears that most of the articles are there only in summary form. There are articles that describes the analysis of samples of lunar soil, but I did not find there articles that have described the results of the medical mission, "Apollo" on the moon in international scientific journals. Find the article "Project Apollo" in Wikipedia and look books. It is exactly the same as on the site, controlled by NASA.
There is only one article, which analyzes the cinematic materials flight to the moon. This supposedly peer-reviewed articles on the fall of the hammer and feather on the Moon, as seems to be the magazine «PhysicsEducation» refereed. On the main page of the journal «Journal of Scientific Exploration» (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/) says «The JSE is the quarterly, peer-reviewed journal of the SSE» (SSE = Society for Scientific Exploration). «Peer-reviewed» means "peer-reviewed". The article analyzes the movie, I repeat, not an original film, and digitized video, taken from the website of NASA, where astronauts throw hammer and a feather, a hammer and a feather reach the ground simultaneously. The authors define g = 1,6 m / s for the moon.
Alas, this is not an article, but rather a kind of advertising or illustration. The material used is not the movie itself, and a video, which is easily faked. Movies are not the primary material. Next. In any scientific article should be a description of the method. It also provides the only reference to a possibly fake movie. And should be a description of how the authors of the film was scanned, the description of the film, etc.
Can we consider this article direct evidence? Unfortunately, no. Weaker gravity can be simulated by reducing the speed of playback, which is used to create special effects in movies. If you play the movie "Apollo 15" faster, falling objects can get acceleration, like Earth, but as if the movement of astronauts become unnatural for a man in a spacesuit. Yet this objection is removed if we assume that the rate of reproduction, that is, copy of your movie to a video clip, is different at the beginning and at the end. You can use a very high-speed shooting, and then remove the footage of the piece, where astronauts move. Pen can be done with lead paint and white paint. Then hammer and leaden feather fall almost simultaneously. At least at the video clip of this poor quality to determine the difference in time can not be less than a second. Only the original film may be proof. Where is he?
Thus, a single original scientific journal articles available for review of the scientific community, wherever analyzed direct evidence of Americans stay on the Moon, no. Circle.
Landing on the moon was somehow outside the scientific channels. Scientific filters are not involved and did not work, or all of these fraud or would not be, or the Americans refused to do on the missions to the moon or imitations. Or would be much more carefully at the evidence.
The Americans have not published any article on its flight, as in the case of Discovery, which would be "black" reviewers analyzed the photos and movies (not digitized videos and original films), proving their stay on the Moon.
I conclude. Flying to the moon as if in contrast to other space missions have not found worthy of reflection in scientific publications in peer-reviewed international journals. It looks very strange. I was told that though the fact of the flight — not a scientific discovery. This is how you look. There is a fact of flight "Gemini", he scientifically evaluated. And then suddenly, "has no scientific value"? Strange.
According to NASA's missions to the moon gave the 10 outstanding discoveries. I began to search for key words "10 outstanding discoveries" and again found no scientific papers that prove the fact of the flight. Often, the evidence in the articles were based on studies of the so-called lunar soil. All these so-called open and easily removed from the flight to the Moon Soviet automatic station, received samples of lunar soil.
The bottom line, we have the following.
1. Independent scientific examination of the facts of flight to the moon, and there is no material available flight. Instead reviewers NASA scientists used a layman.
2. Evidence submitted may be ambiguous.
3. A string of strange events, including the disappearance of the main evidence — motion picture film — is alarming.
4. Falsification in the photos are present.
Therefore, can we trust the media reports about the Americans? No. Why? They mounted the many illustrations, then lie! They seem to have lost the original films! And all! So, they lie! They did not give scientists the original films on the presence of the moon in order to assess the acceleration of free fall, the fall of the dust particles from the rovers, etc. So, they lie! And they lied immediately after the flight.
The main thing — after their flight remained technology.
Output. Do not believe it, until an independent examination. I want to see myself an expert assessment of the evidence of human presence on the Moon. Message that someone else has already researched the evidence, and received them, are not convinced if this is not done in the scientific peer-reviewed journals. While I do not show a scientific article from a scientific assessment of the flight movies or other evidence, I am free to believe in the mission or not.
And the last. Whether it was possible to prove that the film is made on the presence of astronauts is on the moon? On the Internet I found the description of the experience. "Astronaut gets out of the ship and takes up a large, flat piece of cardboard or thick flat sheet of drawing paper (for example, with the image of the Russian flag), holding it upright and gives it a horizontal movement, quickly pushing it in front of the center of the sheet — sheet must fly vertically across the plane forward, without feeling the resistance of the air, at a distance of 3-4 meters. " Why none of the expedition, astronauts did not? You can take a handful of dust and throw it if the astronaut is in a vacuum, dust will fly long, because it will not interfere with air. Why not do that?
So we are waiting confirmation EXPERT flight Americans to the moon. Without it, the fact that the flight is not reliable.
Allow myself pozanudstvovat and summarize in your own words written Mironinym.
It is clear that no messages on the composition of the lunar soil or the health of astronauts landing on the moon proof they are not. Such evidence is only photographs and film footage.
Furthermore, academic journals, in principle, write the same thing, as the rest of the press, but are required to value their reputation because, in contrast to the popular press, they are not interested in a wide range of people, and for the small circle of scientists are valuable only by the accuracy of the what they write.
Here in 1855, Livingstone opened the aforementioned Mironinym Victoria Falls, and all the media immediately reported the discovery. But the scientific journal is not in a hurry, first edition of the reviewers gave a message and photos of Livingstone Falls (if they were), they asked the Levingston negatives to not get caught on photo retouching, other factors reviewers also evaluated the possibility of such a waterfall on the Zambezi, and only after that scientific journal published a report about the opening.
But, say, June 3, 1965 the Americans discovered the open space: American astronaut Ellen G. White, 22 minutes out of an orbiting spacecraft "Gemini-IV». Description of the event with fixing his photographs were published in scientific journals. What else?
And the opening of "American landing sites on the Moon," and later in '43 are no messages in any scientific journal in the world. In any scientific journal of the world there is not one of those photos, which are choking on snot delight boobies.
How do you do?
Category: Scientists, experts, science