|
Post by laurel on Oct 5, 2009 23:20:36 GMT -4
Small world. I was just looking at a page of Carrying The Fire this afternoon: "[The stars] are so far away, of course, that they appear the same whether one is on Earth or a mere lunar distance away. They remind us of the puny distances we men travel; the nearest one, Alpha Centauri, is four light-years away, far beyond our capability to visit today or in our lifetime, yet beckoning, mocking us and our dreams."
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Oct 5, 2009 23:30:21 GMT -4
astronomical scales are really lost on some people it seems.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Oct 6, 2009 0:18:28 GMT -4
No kidding. That board was one step above youtube discussions. My fav was a poster opining that 'they' did not produce faked pics of the stars because 'they' might get it wrong. After all who knows how the stars would be arranged when viewed from the Moon? priceless Johannes Kepler wrote a "science fiction" story discussing how the star positions would look from the surface of the moon. In 1611.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Oct 6, 2009 3:16:15 GMT -4
astronomical scales are really lost on some people it seems. Yeah, it really seems like some people still believe the Earth remains stationary in space while the rest of the universe revolves around it. In 6 months time, the Earth will be more than 180,000,000 miles away from where it is now relative to the stars ... and yet the constellations will look just the same. Why then would they look any different from the moon?
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Oct 6, 2009 4:44:40 GMT -4
Another way of looking at it is that every four hours, the Earth travels the distance from the Earth to the Moon.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Oct 6, 2009 8:30:49 GMT -4
Dunning and Kruger were right. Boy, you ain't kidding. I've never seen purer examples of their principle at work than with the HBs. Most people know just enough math and science to know that they don't know much math and science, at least not enough to take a stand against the entire space engineering and sciences fields. But the HBs are proud to do it without the slightest hint of shame.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 6, 2009 13:01:48 GMT -4
Ha. Our sports editor at my alma mater's paper, when I worked there, acknowledged that I knew far more about grammar than he--and argued with one of my corrections in one of his articles anyway. At least the HBs generally have the decency to just pretend that they know more.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Oct 7, 2009 14:00:44 GMT -4
The particular conspiracy speculator I have been discussing this with has illustrated many times that he is extremely deficient in math and science accumen. His basic fall back position is always 'gov'ts lie all the time'.
As far as Apollo goes he has now linked me to a site called davesweb which from what I can see is a 4 page long , mostly text, website that is almost entirely an arguement from incredulity.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 7, 2009 14:37:55 GMT -4
Yes, a link to that site has been posted recently to BAUT, where it has generated a bit of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 7, 2009 15:47:00 GMT -4
Yeah they are all over it at the Breakfornews site linked to on the first page of this thread. I've poked my nose in there, not sure for how long, depends if they actually appear educatable, probably not, but one never knows. The site is actually 5 pages long, and makes so many errors in fact and assumption that I estimate it'd take me about 5 pages just to correct all the errors on one of his.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 7, 2009 17:21:34 GMT -4
I scrolled down the site quickly, grabbing a line or two here and there. Everything I skimmed by that method was either factually wrong or simply the author's gainsaying assertion. I didn't read anything that was correct.
I don't even know where to begin correcting the massive number of misconceptions on that site.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Oct 7, 2009 18:56:14 GMT -4
the davesweb pages are just.... painful.
Regarding radiation shielding for the VAB:
Wowzers. A guess and a hunch, in one paragraph, none of it based on any research. Lost technology? My god - I just ate 150 calories of Doritos, carefully sealed in an aluminized variation of that gold-coated plastic product.
This guy has a fruit salad of every goofy misconception and uninformed supposition available. He's like a hideous love-child of Rene and Kaysing, foster-parented by Sibrel and classmate with JW.
Massive. Just massive. I think he wins some kind of prize for collecting all the crappiest theories in one ugly, badly formatted place.
{edit to add...} My god. He even uses moon-man's absolute temperature "one or the other" arguement.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 7, 2009 19:34:26 GMT -4
Hint for CTs. Go through the Moon Man thread on BAUT. If you share any argument at all with him, throw it out the window.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Oct 7, 2009 23:03:59 GMT -4
With the 911 Ct's quickly disappearing into the annals (yes 2 'n's) of conspiracy history I decided to take a crack again at the Apollo HB. thus my running back here for expert opinion.
I'm fine with easy stuff like flag waving and 'oh its too dangerous in the Van Halen belts' (Eddie is getting a little old and gassy) but for picture analysis and technical details I come here.
I figured that davesweb had been discussed here or at BAUT.
I told the CT in question that it was the worst piece of claptrap I have seen in a long time.
He came back with a parroted version of the 'why has no one ever gone back' arguement that dave opines upon.
This HB is a far right wing nutbar as well and in his opinion I am but an internet stalker, paid disinfo, "leftist gatekeeper".
I was about floored when he came back with another link to the same photo of Armstrong and the flag, pointing out that the shadow was missing in it and calling it a NASA photo. I then pointed out that the hi-res image I gave him the link to (thanks to the AH forums) had 30 times the amount of information in the jpeg than the ones he was using, that the low res image also is 'missing' the American flag shoulder flash and the cable on the ground in the foreground.
Some people certainly do illustrate that erroneous 'I am better than most' fallacy Jay mentioned earlier.
Obviously I am a 'liberal' and a 'socialist', after all, I admit to being Canadian! ;D
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 8, 2009 3:09:07 GMT -4
Obviously I am a 'liberal' and a 'socialist', after all, I admit to being Canadian! ;D Well then, was saving this one up for LO, but....
|
|