|
Post by stutefish on Jun 27, 2009 15:25:47 GMT -4
I've always seen it as vital. After all, if you (no matter who you are) are able to spot the holes, surely the Soviets would have had people who could have as well. There must have been a reason they didn't say anything. It would have been an enormous coup over a great rival; it quite probably would have shifted the whole of the Cold War, and it could have ended it differently altogether. What possible reasoning could have trumped that? I don't disagree with any of this. I just disagree with the argument that f you have evidence that leads you to believeApollo was hoaxed, you must speculate on why the Soviets declined to comment on the hoax.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jun 26, 2009 17:53:34 GMT -4
The fact is, if you don't believe in Apollo, you must come up with some reason the Soviets kept quiet. "No Cold War" is a popular, though ludicrous, choice. Actually, I've never been a big fan of this line of reasoning. One could reasonably question the reality of Apollo based on real problems with the evidence, while at the same time declining to speculate as to why the Soviets kept quiet.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jun 26, 2009 17:50:40 GMT -4
Hey stutefish, where abouts in SD are you. I lived for a brief time in Mission beach, then moved up to Cardiff-by-the-Sea. back in 1988 it was absolutely beautiful there. When I left the condo boom started which changed alot of the landscape. Escondido, actually. Though I started out in Mission Valley. Yeah, there's tons of new apartment and condo complexes all over the place... though the construction activity seems to have mostly fallen off in the last year or so. Enh. Too much bookkeeping. As far as I'm concerned, you've been participating in this thread in good faith, and your posts count, too. Besides, it's easy to be generous with imaginary money...
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jun 26, 2009 17:18:23 GMT -4
While we're on the subject of wagers, I'd like to propose one. hoaxrabbit has made, by my count, two technical claims against the Apollo Project so far. These are claims that are directly related to the documented technical aspects of the project. I believe they are both traditional HB claims.
Who would like to hazard a guess as to which technical claim he will make next?
First, the tally so far:
hoaxrabbit: The Hasselblad camera and lunar EVA gloves were inoperable, and/or the astronauts were incompetent to operate them. documented technical reality: The camera and gloves were fully operational, by design. The astronauts were trained extensively in their operation.
hoaxrabbit: The original Apollo 11 footage is missing. documented technical reality: The original Apollo 11 data recordings have never been missing. Some backup data recordings are missing.
So, amid the next 15 pages of historical inaccuracy, unsubstantiated innuendo, and pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo, with what technical claim against Apollo will hoaxrabbit next grace us? Will it be the Van Halen Belts? The Rover On A Stick? The Notorious Lemon?
I'm betting on the classic "My God, It's Not Full Of Stars!" Any takers?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Nov 21, 2008 19:35:09 GMT -4
Travel is draining. Air travel is very draining. Inconvenient, uncomfortable travel is really draining.
If--IF!--a given CEO's work is truly as valuable as is represented in his compensation, then it makes sense to reduce as much as possible the drain on his energy and thus on his productivity caused by travel.
The less time and effort he spends worrying about cramped seats and bad food, the more time and effort he has to keep his mind on my money and my money on his mind--which is what I'm paying him big bucks to do.
On the other hand, I do expect him to step up and make the supreme effort where it really counts.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Oct 22, 2008 15:17:04 GMT -4
My eyebrows were raised a bit when Obama said he would go into Pakistan to "kill" Bin Laden. Despite what Bin Laden might or might not have done, I thought in the States you were innocent until proven guilty, and have rights as far as a fair trial etc. It depends if you're thinking in terms of warfare, or in terms of a criminal investigation. It seems to me that while there are clear examples of one and the other, at the extreme opposite ends of the scale, there's a substantial gray area in the middle, where individual cases have many pros and cons for either interpretation, and reasonable people acting in good faith can disagree with each other on which interpretation to adopt. Personally, I believe classifying Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda operatives as "soldiers" is a fairly pragmatic and realistic option, that responsibly acknowledges the plain fact that terrorism can be--and often is--employed as a method of warfare, and that one of its many great advantages is the ability to claim the protections of a civilized criminal investigation whenever necessary, while never giving up the option of engaging in the full brutality of open war whenever convenient. But whatever. It's not like Patton had to wait for the Attorney General to win a conviction against German generals, before he set out to kill them and their subordinates by any means necessary.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Oct 7, 2008 19:23:16 GMT -4
"Scotty" actor James Doohan was missing his right middle finger, which was shot off by a machine gun during the D-Day invasion. He hid it well in the original run of Star Trek, using various tricks like always curling his hand or holding a prop in just the right way to conceal the missing digit. The shots of "Scotty's" hands working the transporter controls were not Doohan's. After that, I got nuthin'.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Oct 3, 2008 12:27:57 GMT -4
Speaking of fictional hypotheses in Crichton's work, I recall the mathemetician in Jurassic Park justifying his preference for dark clothes in hot, sunny climates by handwaving about the efficiency of "black-body radiation".
ETA: Not that black-body radiation is hypothetical, but that it being a good reason to wear a black suit on a sunny day in the tropics is extremely hypothetical.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Oct 2, 2008 12:19:40 GMT -4
"Stand and deliver", a phrase popularly attributed to highwaymen accosting stagecoaches, was also the title of one of those movies about failing students who just need a special kind of dedicated teacher, starring Edward James Olmos as the teacher (it was based on a true story).
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Oct 1, 2008 20:16:04 GMT -4
The Moon was the world's first (only? last?) natural satellite.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Sept 26, 2008 19:36:44 GMT -4
Well that depends.... As far as Flight 77 goes, it has allowed a gap for CTs, especially those that claim to be pilots, and yet seem unable to fly a kite let alone a plane. The last FDR data point is still about 1/2 mile from impact, so the FDR doesn't have any information on the period where 77 hit the lamposts, some are using this as evidence that it never did. Well, sure. CTs will always find a gap of some kind. Even if there is no gap, they'll invent or imagine one. But from a crash-investigation point of view, is anybody saying, "well, without those final six seconds, we really don't know what happened to that plane, or even if it really crashed at all"? Seems like in almost all cases, what the crash investigators actually end up saying is things like "well, we lost the final six seconds of the FDR data, but the light poles, airplane debris, and building damage do a pretty good job of explaining what happened next, so we're good, thanks".
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Sept 26, 2008 12:23:04 GMT -4
I wonder if there are actually any scenarios in which the final 6 seconds would truly be "vital", in the context of a skilled investigation by subject-matter experts...
I mean, are there hypothetical scenarios or real-world examples, where the final 6 seconds of FDR data might hold some necessary information, without which it is impossible to determine the nature of the event or its root cause?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Sept 19, 2008 18:45:14 GMT -4
Firstly, the press is not entitled to protect its sources: It's a pragmatic policy the press has voluntarily adopted by convention, in order to elicit useful information from reticent individuals.
Secondly, the press is absolutely not entitled to cover up knowledge of a crime, or become accessories to criminal acts, or otherwise aid and abet a criminal, simply because they are "reporting" a "story".
There are nuances and complexities, and each case is different, but it's not like should get a free pass just because it's "the press". If they have evidence that can identify a criminal, they quite properly run the risk of legal action and even criminal conviction and penalties. Going to the press with the details of your crime should never be a "get out of jail free" card--not even literally.
Personally, if a reporter is willing to go to jail to protect his sources, or to uphold his perception of the human right to speech free of government tyranny, he has my respect. But if he wants to remain free while abetting criminals, that's having his cake and eating it too, and he has nothing but my scorn.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Sept 17, 2008 17:14:14 GMT -4
Thanks!
But now I'm confused: Are you saying that the LDS concept of salvation is that it is by grace alone? And that you are dissenting from the mainstream view of your church when you argue in favor of a scriptural interpretation for grace and works together?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Sept 16, 2008 19:00:28 GMT -4
I'm not a theologian, but it seems to me that all the quoted passages in the OP are consistent with an interpretation that salvation is by faith alone, and that (Earthly) consequences and (Heavenly) rewards are allocated according to works.
E.g.,
... a murderer might repent and be saved through faith alone, and so enter Heaven, but still suffer the consequences of imprisonment and execution here on Earth.
... an indolent wastrel might through faith be saved, and so enter Heaven, but still be judged at before the throne and find himself less prepared to enjoy the full splendor of God than a believer who diligently spent their whole Earthly life training body and soul for the time when they would "see clearly face to face".
While most of those passages make the reasonable claim that for work there will be reward, and for misdeeds there will be consequences, none of them explicitly state that "good works" are a requirement for salvation itself. Meanwhile, there are several passages that either curiously omit "good works" from their explicit description of the salvation mechanic (e.g., John 3:16), or else explicitly state that it is by grace through faith alone (e.g., throughout Paul's letter to the Romans).
I suppose if you wanted to say that faith--i.e., "choosing to believe"--is a "good work", then okay, sure. But it seems a semantic quibble. And again, while I'm not a theologian, I think even that is addressed, with the doctrine--clearly expressed by Paul (and others)--that even this faith is not of our own making, but is a gift from God beyond our own power to produce or sustain.
|
|