One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

How can the "findings" have been "bizarrely ignored" if the experiment wasn't actually conducted until after Smith asked for a further chemical analysis?

So, correction, I should have said something like "And how more convincing might it be if we all saw the official report he wrote (July 9, 1992) which documented the research he so bizarrely ignored just eight short days earlier?".

Have a great weekend, RJ.

[Kattrup]

I once met Neil Armstrong and I took the opportunity to ask him if he was the first man on the moon how come the cameras recorded the event. He said (surprisingly happily though he must have been so sick of the question) that a camera was extended out from the lunar module. Hmmm, thought I. I've never seen a mechanical arm extending from the Eagle as Armstrong fell down the stairs, getting his line wrong in the process.

Just saying.

It’s not clear what you’re “just saying”

Is it supposed to be a serious post, recounting an actual encounter with Armstrong, or is it satire?

Are you “just saying” that Armstrong lied or that he was mistaken?

Are you “just saying” that the moon landing was an hoax or are you “just saying” that we should consider it a likely possibility?

Or are you just saying that your ignorance of actual events confuses you?

[Abby Normal]

It’s not clear what you’re “just saying”

Is it supposed to be a serious post, recounting an actual encounter with Armstrong, or is it satire?

Are you “just saying” that Armstrong lied or that he was mistaken?

Are you “just saying” that the moon landing was an hoax or are you “just saying” that we should consider it a likely possibility?

Or are you just saying that your ignorance of actual events confuses you?

lol i think hes "just saying" the moon landing is fake but the diary is real. let that sink in

[Iconoclast]

Actually, I was just saying that I met Neil Armstrong and had that discussion.

I do hope the two of you didn't waste too much of your lives wondering what I was 'just saying'.

Doh!

[Iconoclast]

While I'm on the theme, I've heard Armstrong speak twice and on both occasions he described the take-off, the ascent, clearing the Earth's atmosphere, then the approach to the Moon, but he did not on either occasion talk about the descent nor the landing.

Again, I'm just saying. He maybe had a Baxendalian lapse on both occasions?

But I'm just saying. Don't sweat it.

[Kattrup]

Actually, I was just saying that I met Neil Armstrong and had that discussion.

I do hope the two of you didn't waste too much of your lives wondering what I was 'just saying'.

Doh!

I see. Well don’t worry, your posts never reach a level where they take up too much of my time. Your little anecdote, while completely off-topic, is certainly comforting in showing that when you’re ignorant on a subject, as your posts so often are, you’re open to being educated by your betters.

[Iconoclast]

I see. Well don’t worry, your posts never reach a level where they take up too much of my time. Your little anecdote, while completely off-topic, is certainly comforting in showing that when you’re ignorant on a subject, as your posts so often are, you’re open to being educated by your betters.

Wow, I think I've just had a parallel universe moment!

[erobitha]

Wow, I think I've just had a parallel universe moment!

We are so lucky and privileged that there are "betters" on this website to "educate" us.

As a mere tweedle dum who doesn't understand how science works, I am eternally grateful for RJ and others time and patience.

Maybe one day I can be as enlightened as them.

Believing in a man who "observed" something as being absolute proof. I guess when Moses had his little chat with God and came down the mountain with his 10 commandments, I must have missed the one that said "Thou shall not question what Baxendale observed or when he claims to have observed or how."

I dunno, maybe the aliens wrote that one?

[rjpalmer]

Believing in a man who "observed" something as being absolute proof. I guess when Moses had his little chat with God and came down the mountain with his 10 commandments, I must have missed the one that said "Thou shall not question what Baxendale observed or when he claims to have observed or how."

I dunno, maybe the aliens wrote that one?

What is it about the scientific method that you find so difficult to grasp?

Controlled experiments are conducted in a laboratory. The results are observed and recorded. This is known as data and from it we can form a hypothesis or draw conclusions based on other data.

By raving ignorantly about Moses and UFOs you are merely embarrassing yourself whether you realize it or not.

What is it about Baxendale's data that you find objectionable? Are you suggesting he didn't see what he saw?

Or that he was lying to his clients?

[erobitha]

What is it about the scientific method that you find so difficult to grasp?

Controlled experiments are conducted in a laboratory. The results are observed and recorded. This is known as data and from it we can form a hypothesis or draw conclusions based on other data.

By raving ignorantly about Moses and UFOs you are merely embarrassing yourself whether you realize it or not.

What is it about Baxendale's data that you find objectionable? Are you suggesting he didn't see what he saw?

Or that he was lying to his clients?

I'll live with the so-called embarrassment RJ. Thanks for your concern though.

I don't care what he observed, regardless of how well he observed it. If it could not be reproduced it cannot be considered as a scientific fact. That's it.

That's all it requires to dismiss it. it doesn't even require a motive or a conspiracy - it just requires replication. it could not be replicated, regardless of your theories of oxidisation or even mine for that fact. It just is not scientifically sound and cannot be regarded as so. His solubility test is null and void in my eyes.

The only people flogging this horse is you and Orsam.

Perhaps some light reading for you whilst I go back to my embarrassing whimsy of UFOs and and Moses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

[rjpalmer]

I don't care what he observed, regardless of how well he observed it. If it could not be reproduced it cannot be considered as a scientific fact. That's it.

That's all it requires to dismiss it. it doesn't even require a motive or a conspiracy - it just requires replication.

Gadzooks, man.

The experiment was repeated, and the results were entirely different. That's the whole point of my post. Two years and four months later, the experiment was repeated (with the variations that I have already mentioned) and the results were completely different.

That suggests either the experiments were too different to be valid, or that the material being tested had changed.

You're misusing the concept of replication.

When different results are achieved in experimental science, the scientists involved seek an explanation. I'm still seeking clarification about Eastaugh's own tests, but I may or may not get there.

Think of it this way.

If you stick a thermometer in your tea and it reads 140 degrees and two hours later you repeat the experiment and it now reads 70 degrees, does it mean your first reading was bogus? Does it mean your methodology was flawed? Does it mean your thermometer is broken?

Or does it mean your cup of tea went cold?

What you seem to be telling me is that the experiments must have been flawed because the results couldn't be replicated, when of course the real explanation could be your tea went cold.

And by the way, your straw arguments about 'proof' are wide of the mark. Baxendale never claimed it was 'proof,' and scientists seldom use such terminology.

He thought it strongly suggested a fairly recent hoax but acknowledge that if Smith could find a Victorian ink that behaved in a similar manner, the results he witnessed could have an alternative explanation.

The trouble is, no one has found a Victorian ink that 'easily' dissolves 103 years later, and Dr. Eastaugh, who had Smith's full confidence, said that the solubility of old and new inks would be indistinguishable after 5-6 years. He said something along the lines of "The most we can say is that the ink was probably entirely dry."

Meanwhile, I'm done with the ink. It's clear that you and Ike aren't interested in serious inquiry, so if I carry on, I'll carry on solo.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Erobitha,

Are you the Hartley who wrote a book about Fly Fishing?

Regards,

Simon

[erobitha]

Hi Erobitha,

Are you the Hartley who wrote a book about Fly Fishing?

Regards,

Simon

Well done for getting the joke Simon.

You win a signed copy of said book.

[erobitha]

Gadzooks, man.

The experiment was repeated, and the results were entirely different. That's the whole point of my post. Two years and four months later, the experiment was repeated (with the variations that I have already mentioned) and the results were completely different.

That suggests either the experiments were too different to be valid, or that the material being tested had changed.

You're misusing the concept of replication.

When different results are achieved in experimental science, the scientists involved seek an explanation. I'm still seeking clarification about Eastaugh's own tests, but I may or may not get there.

Think of it this way.

If you stick a thermometer in your tea and it reads 140 degrees and two hours later you repeat the experiment and it now reads 70 degrees, does it mean your first reading was bogus? Does it mean your methodology was flawed? Does it mean your thermometer is broken?

Or does it mean your cup of tea went cold?

What you seem to be telling me is that the experiments must have been flawed because the results couldn't be replicated, when of course the real explanation could be your tea went cold.

And by the way, your straw arguments about 'proof' are wide of the mark. Baxendale never claimed it was 'proof,' and scientists seldom use such terminology.

He thought it strongly suggested a fairly recent hoax but acknowledge that if Smith could find a Victorian ink that behaved in a similar manner, the results he witnessed could have an alternative explanation.

The trouble is, no one has found a Victorian ink that 'easily' dissolves 103 years later, and Dr. Eastaugh, who had Smith's full confidence, said that the solubility of old and new inks would be indistinguishable after 5-6 years. He said something along the lines of "The most we can say is that the ink was probably entirely dry."

Meanwhile, I'm done with the ink. It's clear that you and Ike aren't interested in serious inquiry, so if I carry on, I'll carry on solo.

I said you were trying to pass it off as proof, not Baxendale. I am not putting words into his mouth. I am challenging the fact you claim it makes it conclusive proof that the diary is a fake.

The tea example is nonsense. You are trying to shoe-horn oxidisation as being a valid assumption made by those conducting the experiment in Leeds. If the tea was kept in a flask and tested three hours later, guess what, it would still be hot and the result would be replicated. Your casual use of environment means by its very nature, depending how the diary was kept for over 100 years has already changed the conditions.

As I said before find me a paper an ink expert who believes that environment could not impact solubility, depending on conditions. You assume the diary was held in normal conditions and as a result you're basing your theory on what could be a flawed starting point in the first instance. Just like Baxendale.

Seems you finally understand the concept of replication. Who cares if the method can be replicated? Who care how the results were taken down could be replicated?

The only things that matters is the results. The thing you are trying to pass off as proof. You and Orsam.

I state again, it is not proof.

[Abby Normal]

Actually, I was just saying that I met Neil Armstrong and had that discussion.

I do hope the two of you didn't waste too much of your lives wondering what I was 'just saying'.

Doh!

lol trust me i dont.
but what you should really have asked him is who they left on the moon. I mean how did they get that shot of the lunar module taking off from the moon??!?!