|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 30, 2007 21:08:06 GMT -4
Since you're approaching us, shouldn't your nickname be "blueshift"? ;D Welcome anyway!
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 30, 2007 22:43:59 GMT -4
Welcome, redshift!
Hey, rocky, if you're lurking around:
15-0. That's fifteen lurkers and viewers who don't believe you. And not a single one who does.
While you're wrapping up your suspension, can't you come up with anyone who does believe you for when you return? You kept telling us about this silent army of supporters. Good heavens.. was it all mere wishful bluster on your part? Made-up supporters to go with your made-up facts?
|
|
|
Post by redshift on Jul 31, 2007 1:03:23 GMT -4
Welcome, redshift! Hey, rocky, if you're lurking around: 15-0. That's fifteen lurkers and viewers who don't believe you. And not a single one who does. Thanks for the welcome. See, I like Rocky's threads. I appreciate where he's coming from. I also went through a Zinn/Chomsky phase in college and I think it's a healthy place to explore. Certainly their motives as authors is to provoke discussions on how to increase the accountability and transparency of those in power, in an attempt to educate the public on critical thinking. They want to reduce unnecessary suffering in the world. The problem with the idea of the 'hoax' is it's that same critical thinking that lets you accept the reality of the landing, when you learn what gravity is, or radiation, for example. It isn't tremendously difficult to convince people of my generation and younger that Nixon or Kissinger archetypal politicians of the Apollo era, have the capacity to deceive the American public. We live in an age of incredulity, or perhaps an age of scrutiny? edited for accuracy
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 31, 2007 1:38:33 GMT -4
Those in power must be held accountable for their use of it. Where they represent us, they must answer to us for that representation. But to be irrationally skeptical solves nothing. Irrational skepticism does not generate the helpful kind of accountability. And it dilutes credibility for all skepticism.
Where opposition to authority is simply an expression of counter-culturism instead of critical thinking, it may lack value. Counter-culturism loses its meaning when it stops being counter, and that poses problems when the mainstream view happens to be the best supported by fact.
|
|
|
Post by redshift on Jul 31, 2007 4:20:39 GMT -4
While I wouldn't argue with that, I'd opine that isn't it lamentable that the popularity of all these theories practically requires engineers and scientists to 'reinvent the wheel', and re-explain basic things that ought to be readily available through any public school education.
Sometimes I chalk it up to officials reaping what they've sown. The public trust is like a bank account, every 'operation paperclip' or 'mkultra' is a withdrawal from that account.
There will always be people willing to leverage others' suspicions into book or dvd sales for themselves, and people with ulterior motives for being skeptical.
Like I said earlier, math trumps politcs, and the V2 and ICBM certainly worked whether von Braun was a liberal democrat or a national socialist or a siberian shaman. In my mind at least, this makes Apollo undoubtedly possible.
Again, thanks for this resource, I'm impressed by the effort to rationally disprove some of the outlandish statements people put out over the net. I'll continue to lurk more.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 31, 2007 6:19:04 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 31, 2007 19:31:50 GMT -4
Proving something 4/5 dentists agree on is easy
To the majority maybe, but there will always be some people who will be in doubt.
You would think that providing the proof of technology to support the moon landings would be the easy part as it has been assimilated by our society in how we eat, build our houses and handle our communications etc. . But a lot of people don't give a seconds thought to how our microwave or computer works, or receive their television signals: they just use it.
If the moon landings happened just as a matter of opinion you could understand better the divergence of beliefs on whether it actually occured or not. But like you said, "math trumps politics", so it should be relatively easy to convince someone of the truth of the matter.
Sometimes, opinions can almost become fact. For instance, to me it is a 'fact' that the Beatles were the greatest and most influential rock band of all time. No one can convince me that this is not true. And I shake my head whenever someone tells me different: I can't comprehend thinking any other way. To a HB the technology issue isn't the real issue concerning the moon landings but the conspiracy part is. It is easier for them to believe in a conspiracy than to do research into technology. Your comment about young people not actually living the Apollo history is a good point. Everyone relates better to times they lived in, and understands more of that period. When I grew up in the sixties, a lot of stuff was happening - rock n roll , the hippie movement, drugs, the womens liberation movement, the moon landings etc. Believing in the moon landings was easy because I grew up with Mercury, Gemini and Apollo. It happened in stages - as what happened to me when I went from a one year old ('59) to a twelve year old ('60), When I talk to people about their experiences during World War II, I don't think I could ever understand the emotional turmoil that they went through and it can seem quite surreal that such things happened. But they did.
(oh, Redshift you'll get used to my posts being semi-incoherent, but hopefully the gist of what I'm trying to say will come through!) I even make myself dizzy reading them.
|
|
|
Post by donnieb on Jul 31, 2007 21:45:02 GMT -4
Wow, Ginnie, you aged 11 years in one? That must have been a pretty traumatic annum! Welcome, redshift... hey, come back here, why are you running away so fast?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 31, 2007 22:04:51 GMT -4
Ha ha.... 1970 it should be
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 1, 2007 0:34:01 GMT -4
I'll also point out that not all younguns believe Apollo was hoaxed. Jason and I may not agree on much, but we're both young (too young to remember Apollo, right, Jason?), and we both know that believing it was faked is folly.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 1, 2007 1:22:19 GMT -4
I'll also point out that not all younguns believe Apollo was hoaxed. Jason and I may not agree on much, but we're both young (too young to remember Apollo, right, Jason?), and we both know that believing it was faked is folly. I think that most young people agree with you, however based on personal observation, it is my feeling the age distribution among HBs includes a large percentage of young people that is significantly out of proportion with the general population. I think people too young to remember Apollo first hand are more prone to believe it was faked, but that doesn't mean they are likely to believe it was faked. I have faith the younger generation is generally not foolish enough to believe such nonsense. On the other hand, I fear the situation may be getting worse with each passing year.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 1, 2007 2:37:51 GMT -4
I'll also point out that not all younguns believe Apollo was hoaxed. I was just over -3 years of age during Apollo 17, and I've always looked on the hoax theories with mild amusement. Then again, the fact that my paternal grandfather was hired to re-write the testing standards of every single electronic component in the spacecraft the day after the Apollo 1 fire might have had a hand in that. (Uh-oh, I've just admitted to a blood relation with someone who got a NASA paycheck... there goes my credibility :
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Aug 1, 2007 2:45:23 GMT -4
I have faith the younger generation is generally not foolish enough to believe such nonsense. On the other hand, I fear the situation may be getting worse with each passing year. All hope is not yet lost. Kids are more capable of rational thought than they are given credit for, even from a young age. If you nurture an outlook that views the world as an exciting place to explore, and that's it's more than okay to ask questions, then they usually end up all right. I was explaining the notion of water dowsing to my six year old last night, and she gave me a sceptical look and asked, "But Dad, what force could make the stick move? It can't be real, can it?", which made me so proud. Of course, she then went off to write another letter to the fairies who have been leaving trails of glitter around her bedroom along with nocturnal replies to her letters written in really tiny writing that looks just like my wife's (it's amazing how motivated it made my little girl to practice her writing), but I don't think that will do any lasting harm.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Aug 1, 2007 4:26:31 GMT -4
I think people too young to remember Apollo first hand If I may speculate, it might be be people who are too young to remember the cold war.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 1, 2007 11:06:34 GMT -4
I think people too young to remember Apollo first hand If I may speculate, it might be people who are too young to remember the cold war. I think that is a big part of it. It is probably hard to fully appreciate what the cold war was like unless you lived through it. I also think a big part of it is not being able to appreciate the technology that preceded that currently used. I see a trend among young HBs where they seem to think the 1960s was some sort of stone age. That period of history was not the primitive backwater they make it out to be. They just lack an understanding and appreciation for how things were done back then. I lived through the 60s and I have no doubt the engineers of that era were able to put men on the Moon. It is true technology has come a long way since then, but the people working on Apollo did wonders with what they had and left an extensive document trial for us to examine.
|
|