|
Post by Grand Lunar on Mar 9, 2007 18:25:29 GMT -4
Could be anything... Big Science Big Space Brillant Star Bang Supernova ;D
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 9, 2007 18:52:34 GMT -4
A streetwise person can tell when someone is lying and does not need a certificate to confirm this.
But then you knew that already.
No. That's one of those things that is "common knowledge" but actually isn't really true. Especially when the "streetwise person" is already disposed, if not determined, to believe someone is lying.
Your opinion has been duly noted. But it is not evidence. Not even, as rocky would say, "mere evidence".
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Mar 9, 2007 19:15:01 GMT -4
It's a load of Bart Siebrel.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 9, 2007 19:39:03 GMT -4
"Streetwise" is a contextual skill. It is dependent on you knowing the environmental surroundings common to you and the people you are interacting with. The sharpest con artist in New York City is going to have a tough time figuring out if a seedy merchant in Bangkok is trying to scam him; the body language and cultural mores are just too different to translate.
And speaking of foreign cultures; here we have three men who are highly trained test pilots, skilled scientists, and leaders in a very small group of people with actual experience in the space environment. They have just gotten back from a situation that is so alien as to be hard to imagine. And you expect to come from a general-knowledge background, sit in comfort in front of your PC, and decide not only what emotions they are having but WHY they are having them?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 9, 2007 21:05:11 GMT -4
I contend instead that street wisdom does not imply a greater ability to detect falsehood, but rather simply a greater willingness to interpret ambiguous behavior as indicative of falsehood.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 9, 2007 21:51:39 GMT -4
Heck, there are certain people who never exhibit any of the signs any culture uses as signs that someone's lying. These people, granted, are called "sociopaths," but still.
|
|
|
Post by delirium on Mar 25, 2007 2:48:00 GMT -4
Okay, I tried watching one of the videos, "Astronauts Gone Wild", but I couldn't get past the part where Sibrel tried to get Alan Bean to swear "under penalty of treason". The definition of treason has crept all over the map since 2001, but most sources seem to agree that treason is undermining one's government. So, if the Apollo missions WERE a government hoax, Bean would be SUPPORTING his government if he said he walked on the moon, not betraying it. Using the taxpayers' money to perpetrate a hoax is thievery, deceit, and business as usual, but not treason.
So I didn't watch much more. But I always love seeing Aldrin throw the punch.
I found this forum in a Google search about the recent articles on lunar dust and its possible effects on the lungs. But I can't find a thread about that (is there one?) so I thought I'd keep reading till I found something I felt like responding to.
Hiya, Kelly. *waves*
edited to add: Someone asked about former military personnel. Guilty. Navy.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Mar 25, 2007 5:35:37 GMT -4
Welcome, delirium. I'm a former Navy guy, too. USN sonar tech (surface), 1985-1995.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 25, 2007 11:01:20 GMT -4
Hi again, Del. Welcome to the forum.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Mar 25, 2007 11:14:29 GMT -4
. . . I couldn't get past the part where Sibrel tried to get Alan Bean to swear "under penalty of treason". The definition of treason has crept all over the map since 2001, but most sources seem to agree that treason is undermining one's government.Treason against the United States is narrowly defined in the Constitution, Article III, Section 3: In any case, the point is moot, as there is no such legal concept as "swearing under penalty of treason"--at least not in the US. Sibrel couldn't even get any astronaut to swear under penalty of perjury--only a duly authorized person (such as a notary, a judge, or a legislative committee chairman) has that power. So, if the Apollo missions WERE a government hoax, Bean would be SUPPORTING his government if he said he walked on the moon, not betraying it.This is debatable, IMO. I think it would depend on the reasons for the hoax, and exactly which officials orchestrated it. For example, if LBJ said to NASA, "We need to have some fake moon landings so that we can gain an advantage in the Cold War," then, yes, I would be inclined to agree. OTOH, if, as some conspiracists contend, NASA cooked up a moon hoax to justify its "huge" budget, I would disagree. Using the taxpayers' money to perpetrate a hoax is thievery, deceit, and business as usual, but not treason.Correct.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Mar 25, 2007 15:22:22 GMT -4
The definition of treason has crept all over the map since 2001, but most sources seem to agree that treason is undermining one's government. As Sir John Harington noted in his Epigrams, treason is unsuccessfully attempting to undermine one's government ;D "Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
|
|
|
Post by showtime on Mar 25, 2007 16:58:22 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 25, 2007 17:38:56 GMT -4
If you want to post your photoshop creations in new threads that is fine (as long as they don't violate any rules), but do not post them in established threads again.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Mar 25, 2007 17:40:32 GMT -4
Apart from the controversy around the person, outside the context I like that Snakes on A Pollo picture.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 25, 2007 17:43:22 GMT -4
Mm. South of the border cooking!
|
|