|
Post by gillianren on Dec 21, 2011 16:15:19 GMT -4
And people who point out, "This is what the news was reporting!" have no idea how a newsroom works. At that, it's actually worse today, because the news used to go off the air. Now, every minute has to be filled, and people want new things to fill it with. What goes on the air in the first hours after a major news event is simply not as reliable as what appears in official paperwork, because reporters don't have access to that and are often the next best thing to guessing.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 21, 2011 16:12:56 GMT -4
Psh, our holidays started weeks ago with Sinterklaas. ;D Happy holidays, everyone. That's when mine start, too--it's my birthday. And the quiet Yule I'll be spending with Graham today is so much better than the Christmas of Bickering with his family Sunday.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 21, 2011 16:11:24 GMT -4
That's a really obviously fake picture, too. There are all kinds of problems with it. You'd think no Apollo denier had ever looked at a picture ostensibly taken on Earth and thought, "That's really fake" before, because they don't seem to realize how instinctive that reaction can be.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 21, 2011 1:15:35 GMT -4
Who cares what they claim? What matters is what they can show evidence of.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 20, 2011 19:08:23 GMT -4
It's the necessary selective stupidity required by all major conspiracist plots. They have to be good enough to fool experts but stupid enough to leave obvious failures for the uneducated to find.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 20, 2011 16:07:33 GMT -4
For heaven's sake, Jack White appeared before Playdor's precious subcommittee--and they ignored him. They found out he didn't even know what "photogrammetry" means, and they said, "Thank you for coming." I'd also note that he hasn't seen the movie Blow-Up, because if he had, he'd know about film grain and the hazards of enlarging things too much. The "hidden details" are impossible. The grain of the film is too large and the supposed details are too small.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 19, 2011 23:01:34 GMT -4
I'm not sure I've ever seen a conspiracist argument which wasn't stupid. However, that doesn't necessarily mean the people making the arguments are. They clearly don't know anything about whatever subject is under discussion, but "ignorant" and "stupid" aren't the same thing. Even "willfully ignorant" isn't the same thing. Frankly, I find willful ignorance even worse than stupid, but it's at least theoretically curable. Stupid isn't.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 19, 2011 22:59:15 GMT -4
What about being on the Moon lengthens the astronauts' legs?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 19, 2011 17:11:58 GMT -4
The fact is, the burden of proof is the same regardless of who is on trial for what. That means you aren't allowed to just say "well, the evidence was changed." You have to prove that. If you can't, no one has to take your claim that it was seriously.
LBJ was corrupt in the grand tradition of Texas politics, but the claim that the Warren Commission must therefore have been as well implies that LBJ had anything to do with its day-to-day operation, and he simply didn't. He was busy running the country at the time, and it's certainly not as though he didn't know that there was a conflict of interest. Besides, if Texas politics were really as corrupt as all that, wouldn't Texas politicians be dropping like flies?
And honestly, it's quite likely that LBJ did know about the one lie in the autopsy report--JFK's health--and thought it was possible he might just die of preexisting conditions.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 19, 2011 17:02:52 GMT -4
Sure, but that's why I am so determined that we keep it about the science and not the people. "Your facts are wrong" is better than "you're an idiot." Now, there have been several people here, quite recently, that I have wanted to call idiots, but that was after determining that they were incapable of learning anything.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 18, 2011 23:08:52 GMT -4
And of course proving a conspiracy takes a lot more work than just finding people with motives. You have to find physical evidence which shows that your version of events is the correct one. If it contradicts your version of events, you don't get to just assume it was faked. You have to show it was faked.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 18, 2011 23:04:49 GMT -4
If you don't like the intellectual environment here, avoid college. The fact is, there are certain places where there are standards. Here, the standards include writing as well as you can, presenting your arguments as well as you can, and being polite. If you can't do that, you can't have an intellectual discussion with adults. If that's snobbery, well, I'm honestly okay with that. The fact that I don't want to be in a free-for-all where you can insult people, not back up your claims, and so forth is why I'm here, not there.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 18, 2011 19:40:06 GMT -4
My, but that would be a long list.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 18, 2011 16:59:41 GMT -4
I think all conspiracy claims require someone to be stupid. It's just who and how many people. The problem with Apollo claims, and the reason I've never been able to make a "working" conspiracy out of it, is that it requires practically everyone to be stupid.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 17, 2011 14:15:16 GMT -4
Could it be that it's just not possible to uniformly illuminate a large set with just one spotlight set back at a sufficient distance? Almost certainly. I'm not quite an expert, but remember that any lighting you use wouldn't just be lighting the stuff you wanted. It would be lighting the offcamera stuff, too. They'd have to be able to see what was going on, see what they were doing. And any light they used would show up on camera.
|
|