|
Post by Kiwi on Feb 6, 2006 7:40:36 GMT -4
Here's a really good experiment regarding star visibility and dark adaption. It's so effective and so confuses your brain that it's possible to feel giddy or even slightly nauseous, but I certainly don't believe that Stargazer will bother putting in the effort to check it out. He seems to be completely clueless about the difficulty of seeing stars when sunlit objects are within one's vision, and unwilling to enlighten himself. Not that dark adaptation nonsense again. Like many small, simple things, the experiment requires a long-winded description. When you're in a dark-sky area with very good "seeing" * and where no lights shine in your eyes, get to a brightly-lit area and cover one eye in such a way that you can't see any light with it, but it can be kept open so you can blink normally and it is not affected by tears. A dark-gloved hand cupped over, but not closing, the eye may do the trick. The object is to be able to see completely normally on removing the cover. With the other eye, spend at least five minutes looking at a brightly-lit area. By using a light meter, I found that a piece of plain A4 printing paper held right next to a 200 watt lightbulb was as bright as an average sunlit scene and therefore perfect for staring at for the experiment. You need to be able to get to your dark-sky area quickly before your eyes adapt, so it may be necessary to have a red light handy for seeing how to get there. When five to seven minutes are up, get to the dark sky area, uncover the covered-up eye and look at the stars with both eyes. If you've never done this before be prepared for some strange feelings, because the previously-covered eye will be able to see very dim stars but the other will only be able to make out a few of the brightest. Stay in the dark area until both eyes are well-adapted and note some dim stars that you can easily see. Then look at something bright for a few minutes, or just shine a white light in your eyes, and look for the dim stars again. Note how long it takes to see them clearly. * By good seeing I mean much like I regularly have here, where Omega Centauri, 47 Tucanae, the LMC and the SMC are naked-eye sights, and Supernova 1987A was clearly visible from under heavy light pollution.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 6, 2006 8:33:08 GMT -4
The animal around the moon is a fairy-tale as most of the rest of space flight (of living beings).
First, you are simply waving your hands to dismiss evidence. That won't work here. You have to give specific and quantitative reasons why you think it's impossible. If you can't - and you've had on the order of 100 pages to do so, without doing so - your claims fail due to lack of suport.
Second, "most space flight" means orbiting space stations (mostly Mir and ISS) and the Shuttle, which together constitute the vast majority of flight time for "living beings". So which ones of those are you claiming are fake? Bear in mind that we can see those things with our own eyes (past tense, of course, in the case of Mir). Also bear in mind that such vehicles routinely transit a low-hanging bit of the Van Allen Belts.
Finally, radiation affects electronics, too - in some ways, electronics are more susceptible to radiation than living beings. If most spaceflight of "living beings" is impossible due to radiation, than most spaceflight is impossible, period, because satellites would quit working shortly after launch. Do you claim, then, that satellites are fakes? In particular, the satellites that spend their entire operational lives smack in the middle of the Van Allen Belts?
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Feb 6, 2006 8:40:54 GMT -4
Nevertheless I find Armstrong's quote suspicious because of the "tiny pea". And you never use hyperbole? Never exaggerate? Yeah, right! I seem to recall you accusing Armstrong of making up something without thinking, when in fact it was you who had made an incredibly dumb mistake for a "physics major." Next thing you'll be making a big deal out of is Gene Cernan saying on the commentary track to the movie For All Mankind, regarding the lunar module: 1:14:54 A great little flying machine, like a little fighter airplane. If it had a tail hook on it, I know it could land on a carrier!
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Feb 6, 2006 8:58:27 GMT -4
But let's not be unjust to Armstrong. After all he wasn't such a full mouthed liar as some of the other "astronauts" rather he was the one who refused answering questions most of them all. Why? Because he is afraid. He knows that if he tries to come out they will kill him before his confession makes it on the airwaves. Sounds horrible, but I fear it's true. Perhaps you'd like to look up the following interview with Neil Armstrong www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/ArmstrongNA/ArmstrongNA_9-19-01.pdfand tell us that he didn't answer "all" of the questions in "all" of the 105 pages, and explain exactly which ones he was afraid of, and where he lied. We gleefully await the benefit of your obvious expertise in such matters. Please just don't tell us that he lied everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 6, 2006 9:55:50 GMT -4
Why not? It's the all-purpose answer.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2006 10:57:26 GMT -4
I did not say the cooperation "proves the moon landing were faked".
You don't have to say it. In the real world the Soviets were both well-equipped and well-motivated to detect a forged Apollo. Therefore your argument depends on your being able to show evidence why they didn't. You accepted that as a valid argument because you then try to refute the premise that the Soviets were well-motivated. And your reason for their lack of motivation? They "had" to be in it because they didn't detect the forgery!
That is the textbook example of circular reasoning:
"Why are you beating that old woman?" "She's a witch." "How do you know she's a witch?" "Because we wouldn't be beating her if she weren't."
The fake is obvious for everyone who has eyes to see.
Eyes perhaps to see only books and videos put out by ignorant profiteers.
The animal around the moon is a fairy-tale as most of the rest of space flight (of living beings).
LOL! So you simply decide not to believe in whatever disputes your preconceptions. Apparently having "eyes to see" means putting on blinders to whatever you don't want to see.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 6, 2006 11:34:01 GMT -4
So you simply decide not to believe in whatever disputes your preconceptions
I think you are on to something there, Jay: a sure-fire way to never loose a debate!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2006 13:47:08 GMT -4
Well, a sure-fire way to avoid debate altogether. An opponent has to have a modicum of reason, if only to know when he's lost. Unreasonable generally don't understand why a fallacious argument doen't work, and so don't necessarily agree that it doesn't.
Identifying something as circular reasoning is a sufficient refutation if you know what circular reasoning is. Similarly it is fully sufficient to reject Hufschmid's latest simply with audiatur et altera pars. No more refutation need be provided. But again that presumes that Hufschmid or any reader would know what those are and why they undermine the argument.
The "rules" of logic aren't like the rules of basketball. They're not arbitrary. The object of making a case is to show how a conclusion must follow from observation. And so it's not a case of "those are your rules, not mine," or "the rules don't apply to me." Inferential rules arise out of observation, not just out of some traditional fiat. Circular reasoning fails because it infers a conclusion from itself, something known not to be expressive of reliabilty. Audiatur et altera pars fails because it infers from nothing, which does not express reliability. These aren't just made up rules; these are things we know lead to conclusions that fail to conform to reality.
I think it's interesting of Stargazer to bring up Sutton. First he pooh-poohs what he says is our reliance on outside authority telling us what to believe, then he tells us we have to read and believe his pet authority on his wild theories. But also because Sutton is so down on academia. I kinda get now why Stargazer doesn't put any faith in "book larnin'". Sutton told him to.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 6, 2006 14:14:29 GMT -4
Anyway, the consensus here is that you do not have a bachelor's degree in physics from an accredited university.
Should I care about what people think who believe or pretend to believe in the Apollo moon landings?
Yes, you should; we're trying to save you from making dumb mistakes.
If not for us, you'd still believe you could only just barely block the Moon with your thumb. That's a dumb mistake because it's clearly not true, and anyone who pays attention can see why. It's a dumb mistake because the math we did for you - the high-school math - demonstrated you were off by a factor of four. Worst of all, it's a dumb mistake because you just waved your thumb and avoided careful observation simply because it fit your determination to deny the Apollo record. It was also a dumb mistake because you accused Armstrong of "just making something up without thinking about it first" when it was you who did that very thing, and then sneered at a flood of careful and definitive responses until you finally relented and admitted you were wrong.
Now, that last action was to your credit. Admitting you were wrong is a vital first step to learning. But unless you build on that, start to question what you read from conspiracist websites, and start making specific and quantitative evaluations of various claims, you won't progress.
It's ironic, now that I think of it. AFAIK, you are the only person ever to make the "Armstrong's thumb" claim, and you put it to the test. If you will do that for something you thought up yourself, why not do the same for the many arguments copied from CT web sites?
Good one, hahaha...
(Shrug) It's good for US$100. It's also good if you admit you don't have one; you won't gain monetarily, but you would gain a bit more credibility.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 6, 2006 18:44:31 GMT -4
I said:
Stargazer said:
Oh. Okay. I'm sorry.
The eloquence of argument has convinced me! */sarcasm*
I'm assuming you're talking about stuff the Soviets obtained by means other than espionage. If so, could you tell me more, please, as I don't know this.
Okay then, let's get a list from you of what events in space travel you think genuinely have happened:
- Sputnik?
- Vostok with Yuri Gagarin?
- Mercury?
- Leonov's space walk?
- Gemini?
- The death of Komarov in Soyuz 1?
- The deaths of the three Soviet cosmonauts at the end of a space station mission?
- Skylab?
- The Space Shuttle?
- Mir?
- Soyuz?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 7, 2006 7:43:50 GMT -4
Getting back to the OP, how are you supposed to reply to Hufschmid's challenges? There doesn't appear to be a forum or e-mail address linked from any of them. Where are the replies? I know we've discussed the last couple of challenges here, but he obviously won't link to us.
There's a couple of replies from "Tim" linked from challenge #24, but these are general rather than specific to the challenge and most of the page is taken with more from Hufschmid, including some truly ludicrous misunderstandings of the Apollo sanitary arrangements.
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Feb 7, 2006 8:07:02 GMT -4
There's an email addy at the bottom of his 'Linux rants' page; I think a great deal of restraint would be needed to reply to just the quiz via this, as he seems to be a first class prune. Some people have replied, without restraint, however...
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 7, 2006 11:34:07 GMT -4
Thanks. I've just noticed there's another inconspicuous e-mall address at the top of the home page.
What would be interesting would be seeing his previous challenges with all the less restrained replies, but I don't suppose that even he is daft enough to publish that.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Feb 7, 2006 22:12:38 GMT -4
How come the Americans also delivered weapon's incl. nuclear technology long after the end of WWII. . ???? What the f%ck are you talking about. You obviously did not read Sutton's books you read about them some where and misinterpreted it. Even if a book had that as it's thesis it would have been contradicted by hundreds of other books and countless other evidence. So you believe the Cold War was a hoax. Why then were the Moon landings faked in the first place? EDIT -forgot to disable emoticons
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 8, 2006 12:25:06 GMT -4
So you believe the Cold War was a hoax. Why then were the Moon landings faked in the first place?
I don't say the Cold War was a hoax. For most of the people on both sides it sure wasn't. It was designed using the "good" old method of divide et impera. Keep the plebs fighting against each other and create fear (of mutual annihilation) in them so that they never understand who their enemy really is. Now that the so-called Cold War is over they have created another bogeyman, international terrorism, and who knows, maybe they will use it to start another major war. The matter is much more complex than the simple concepts indoctrinated into people's mind.
Motives for the Apollo hoax? There are several possible motives, e.g.: a) Spectacle; give the American people a great show which reassures them they and the American way are far superior to the rest of the world. b) disctract from the absolutely senseless, unjust Vietnam war. c) last but not least: Money! NASA got some 25 billion dollars for the Apollo project so they had to show something. Since they couldn't achieve a real moon landing they provided a great movie show instead.
|
|