|
Post by gillianren on Aug 3, 2009 15:23:54 GMT -4
What, Laurel, just because they look nothing alike?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 3, 2009 16:48:50 GMT -4
Hey, when someone thinks that Gagarin was the first man to fly the Space Shuttle solo, nothing surprises me....
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 3, 2009 19:31:39 GMT -4
Wait, really?
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Aug 3, 2009 19:34:22 GMT -4
Hey, when someone thinks that Gagarin was the first man to fly the Space Shuttle solo, nothing surprises me.... I guess the Americans acquired the space shuttle when he used it to defect. I suppose if he were still alive, he would have an outside chance to achieve that distinction - so far, no one has ever flown it solo, correct?
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Aug 3, 2009 19:40:00 GMT -4
Some of them seem to believe the allegedly alleged moon landings were done with the space shuttle. I've mentioned before that this is a pet peeve of mine. I'm not a very scientifically-minded person and I wasn't alive during the Apollo program, but even I can tell the difference between the Space Shuttle and the LM, so I don't think there's any excuse for HBs' ignorance on this matter. I can see the confusion: In the Saturn V photo (the second one, since they're so hard to tell apart), one of the structures below the exhaust looks like a stick figure to me. It must not be very comfortable there I also found this clearly doctored photo, more evidence of trickery: www.irelandlogue.com/craic/space-shuttle-over-ireland.html
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Aug 3, 2009 19:44:30 GMT -4
BTW, while looking for the photos, I came across this site: www.bigmantra.com/man_on_moon/Has anyone seen it before? At first, it looks like a pro-hoax site, but there are reasonably intelligent rebuttals at the bottom of each page.
|
|
|
Post by lazarusty on Aug 3, 2009 20:12:17 GMT -4
It seems to have been written objectively with both points of view and no conclusion. This isn't a bad thing at all.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 3, 2009 23:04:58 GMT -4
It seems to have been written objectively with both points of view and no conclusion. This isn't a bad thing at all. So if someone published something that published both points of view about how you're a serial killer with no conclusion, that wouldn't be a bad thing? Journalistic balance doesn't mean taking both points seriously or at the same level if one has evidence and one does not.
|
|
|
Post by lazarusty on Aug 4, 2009 1:25:50 GMT -4
It's about context I think. I'd hardly compare the moon hoax with serial killing unless you think the high number of astronaut deaths has something to do with a NASA serial killing machine. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 4, 2009 1:45:51 GMT -4
I'd hardly compare the moon hoax with serial killing unless you think the high number of astronaut deaths has something to do with a NASA serial killing machine. ;D So you're admitting that you've murdered astronauts?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 4, 2009 3:52:31 GMT -4
It's about context I think. I'd hardly compare the moon hoax with serial killing unless you think the high number of astronaut deaths has something to do with a NASA serial killing machine. ;D Wrong as usual. It's about fact. Presenting the hoax as fact, or even possibly fact, is irresponsible, because there's just as much chance that it's true as that any random person I point to is a serial killer. Less, even--the highest figure I've heard given for serial killers operating in the US at any given time is 300, and I wouldn't put the chances NASA faked the Moon landings that high.
|
|
|
Post by lazarusty on Aug 4, 2009 4:29:36 GMT -4
That's just your opinion that it's that low.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 4, 2009 7:55:04 GMT -4
No, Gillenren was actually over-estimating the possiblity it was faked. Just because you don't want to live in reality.....
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 4, 2009 9:03:04 GMT -4
That's just your opinion that it's that low. Gillianren figure comes to one in one million. Do you have a better estimate? What probability level would you consider to be sufficient to make the validity of a hoax even worth considering?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 4, 2009 10:51:48 GMT -4
It's about context I think. I'd hardly compare the moon hoax with serial killing unless you think the high number of astronaut deaths has something to do with a NASA serial killing machine. ;D Smiley noted, but what case do you make that the number of astronaut deaths was suspicious? Further, what can you say about the manner and circumstances of their deaths that suggests a cause other than what was published?
|
|