|
Post by Glom on Jan 2, 2008 9:46:32 GMT -4
I ask this because such an issue was raised about my own site. Specifically, a myth/fact format was used in a post at NEI Nuclear notes. A commenter said the format is a bad idea because it inadvertantly causes readers to take the mythical headings as the true bit. Another blogger then e-mailed me about it since it has relevance to the format of my site. You can read the comment in question here
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 2, 2008 20:52:29 GMT -4
Yes, I have heard of the same phenomenon. I didn't know about it when I chose the format for the site. Clavius aims to be more of a dialogue than a myth/fact representation but I think the concern is well founded. I haven't heard any complaints of Clavius causing that effect, so I'll stick with it.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 3, 2008 4:21:37 GMT -4
A lot of sites lay things out that way, not least snopes.com. As long as you make it crystal clear which is which, the only people who should get confused are people who are either easily confused or want to misinterpret what you say.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Jan 3, 2008 15:20:01 GMT -4
I was of thinking of perhaps putting the opponents' arguments inside a sort of quote box. It might visually serve to separate the text from the page itself, thereby disassociating what they say from what I'm saying.
Is that logcal/wacked/indifferent?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 3, 2008 16:03:34 GMT -4
I've made the Hoax claims red and the counters green and hope that the colour association helps to distinguish the two.
eta: I guess that won't help the colour blind crowd, but....
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 3, 2008 16:25:18 GMT -4
My untested hypothesis is that the myth/fact misplacement phenomenon is most pronounced when each is given an approximately equal weight. As in, Myth: shadows cast by the sun should be parallel. Fact: shadows cast by the sun are affected by perspective and terrain. That's not typically how Clavius works. The myth starts out as a sentence or paragraph followed by an often lengthy exposition of the contradicting facts. Here's a typical example. www.clavius.org/techengine.html I think the disproportionate emphasis alleviates the mistake. I also use a straightforward exposition where background knowledge is needed. That's so I can link to it from relevant discussions, but not clutter up each individual discussion. The radiation primer page www.clavius.org/envradintro.html is linked wherever the discussion requires special understanding of radiation. Where appropriate I use an interlinear style that derives from how I write on forums. www.clavius.org/bibcollier.htmlI think I've been able to avoid the misattribution phenomenon that way.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Jan 4, 2008 3:06:10 GMT -4
I think I've been able to avoid the misattribution phenomenon that way. Or so we hope. If there is such an effect, and there very well might be, first impressions and all, I don't see how it could be completely eliminated from any format dealing with HB directly. You simply have to mention it before deconstructing it. (JayUtah is usually clearer about what the HBs believe than the HBs themselves. They could take primers from him.)
|
|
|
Post by soulleister on Apr 10, 2009 11:44:21 GMT -4
I was not impressed with Clavis Moon Base's slick production attempt to provide a NASA freindly cover story regarding: the LM hatch is 32 inches wide and thus, sinced the PLSS is only 19 inches wide there is no problem ingressing or egressing.
What a red herring!
The real crux of the issue is not whether or not a astronaut in an inflated/pressurised suit with PLSS velcroed to his back can fit in the hole, rather the fact/problem that cannot be overcome is: the distance between hatch and the wall 32 inches beyond the hatch protecting the ascent rocket which is taller than the hatch opening... it cannot be negotiated by an astronaut in a pressurised suit with a 26 inch PLSS (atop which is attached a 10 inch communications module, oh yeah, and in virtually every photo the astronauts show their helmet sticks up a few inches above that too)... mindful he is crawling/slighering in on his belly and cannot bend backwardly up as his pelvis as his knees prevent that (as well as being in a pressurised suit that is not designed to bend that way)... making him even longer still... some 60 inches (38 inches too long for the confined space). Alas, not unlike the OJ trial, if it doesn't fit you must acquit.
One cannot shove a solid unbendable mass (from top of a helmet to a pair of bent in the wrong direction knees of well over approching five feet in length (28 inches in diameter) into a floor space that can only accomodate the width of a swinging hatch door, 32x32) hoping the unbendable mass can magically bend backwards (mindful, the console over the hatch further confines the space inwhich the magic must occur... simply put it is impossible for a suited astronaut to negotiate the crawl space beyond the hatch to come and go from the LM... unless our astronauts were minor female chinese gymnists... none of our astronauts were that tiny... some over six feet tall... certanly none of them were able to hyper flex at the pelvis, sigh). The primary reason NASA didn't formalize procedures for using the LM door (other than as a prop)... it could not be used by men of this earth.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Apr 10, 2009 12:48:40 GMT -4
I'm pretty sure this should have been posted in "The Hoax Theory." It certainly has nothing to do with the myth/fact format discussion.
And no Apollo astronauts were over six feet tall.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 10, 2009 12:53:29 GMT -4
Hi, soulleister, welcome to the forum. There is a thread dealing with this issue, but I can't find it right now. Perhaps another member here can direct you to where it is.
The search engine on this board kind of sucks.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Apr 10, 2009 13:57:28 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by soulleister on Apr 10, 2009 15:00:26 GMT -4
I'm pretty sure this should have been posted in "The Hoax Theory." It certainly has nothing to do with the myth/fact format discussion. And no Apollo astronauts were over six feet tall. perhaps I posted in the wrong place, thanks for your advice, oh and by the way, in passing: COMMANDER Eugene Cernan PERSONAL DATA: Born in Chicago, Illinois, on March 14, 1934. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: Gray hair; blue eyes; height: 6 feet; weight: 190 pounds. now put him in a space suit that has to be larger than him, do the math (checkout the required room/space in the helmet, adding several inches to his frame) and he is occupying a defined space well over six feet... tall... I know what I am talking about. Can't we all just get along?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Apr 10, 2009 15:33:33 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by soulleister on Apr 10, 2009 18:33:44 GMT -4
So parroting someone instead of checking the NASA records (first hand) passes for informed opinions here? That is good to know. I am sorry to have quoted from a NASA bio (obviously they must be lying all the time?)... oddly it corresponds to the military records for several astronauts above 5'11''... go figure... they must have been very comfortable in the cookie cutter suits provided... oh that's right NASA lied about Dover making custom suits (15 for each astronaut) back then... and JAYUTAH held them all??? That is good to know. Thanks for the skinny... I will leave the shallow end of the pool now.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Apr 10, 2009 18:38:27 GMT -4
Did you read the other linked threads?
|
|