http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/03/19/obit.clarke.ap/index.html
Thanks for a movie - with Kurbrick - that I had to explain to 3 girlfriends.
Arthur C. Clarke Has Died
I feel responsible
Last month, I posted in my blog that I felt responsible for Roy Scheider's death. I can't help but feel this is continued fall-out from our halting 2010 in mid-stream.
Since bad things always happen in 3's, let's start a poll now to determine what the 3rd and final death as a result of my non-watching of 2010 will be. And if there is anything I can do to reverse the curse and stop the carnage!
Still waiting for a real step on the moon
Hi Guys;
I really admired what Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick did, especially cause ,for me. the moon is still a place to discover. Clarke and Kubrick gave the us the space, the man on the moon, and the illusion of going there someday, maybe in the near future.
For now, I'm an unbeliever that the man has ever set a foot on the moon.
Just google "what happened on the moon" and check the videos there.
======================
Congratatio pro erudio et auxilium
Itux
With All Do Respect
I don't judge the verasity of your belife Itux and sometime I'm sure we would have great fun disscussing the Appolo Progect.
However, here is a website that calims the moon its self is a hoax:
http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm
And here is NASA's rebuttle:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm
Again Itux please don't take this as an insult. I'm trying to further duscussion. :-)
Be Seeing You.
FAIL
Let me just jump in here and argue that the idea the moon landing was faked is not only wrong, but it defies logic and reasoning. I am more than positive that any "facts" about the moon "hoax" have been debunked over and over through the years.
In cases like this I defer to ockham's razor. Is it more logical that the U.S. landed on the moon given the technology and scientific understanding of the time OR is it more likely that NASA faked the landing, covered it up, and fooled everyone except a small group of true believers? Given what it would take, the amount of people and resources, to fake something this huge- I don't give any time to this conspiracy.
Phil Plait is a source I trust, and incidentally, he participated as a consultant in a recent mythbusters concerning the potential faking of a moon landing.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
the amount of time
spent on conspiracy theories and debunking conspiracy theories is mind blowing. My sister-in-law recently sent my a video detailing how 9-11 was a inside/government job. I found the claim to be questionable and searched a bit on the internet. Wow....lots and lots of time and money spent on this topic; a whole cottage industy.
I would simply tell her she is stupid and all the evidence doesn't support the claim but since she is a person and has feelings...I haven't found that hitting someone over the head with my superior thinking skills to be an effective rhetorical tool. So, I found a Noam Chomsky video where he uses the same logic as ticktock (she and i like him and he can't be written off as anti-conspiracy theory) http://youtube.com/watch?v=BzGd0t8v-d4 At the end says that all this distracts us from serious issues. I agree.
I apologize for hijacking the thread.
Chris
An Elaborate Hoax? Nah…
I have been to the KSC-NASA and have seen firsthand the Apollo 11 Rocket and Lunar Orbiter and can attest that given the years that these alleged missions took place, they are for real. It would have been an astronomical expense to put on given the timeline of the last century, the equipment is massive huge and preserved/displayed in a fashion I have not seen elsewhere, except maybe the Smithsonian and that could not even begin to house what’s in Florida. I have even touched moon rocks, I haven’t been everywhere on earth yet but I can safely say I have never seen anything quite like them before.
Even if it were to be attempted, the people who would attempt to do it would be the 1960's stoned half brain dead hippies and they were more into making whoopee in Boulder, not war or nationwide disbelief! Let alone trying to dismantle one of the US’s greatest achievements (peace man, far out!) and that did not become a popular thing to do till the late 90’s when the popularity of the WWW boomed.
All these skeptic nay sayer web sites have nothing better to do than to play with your mind!
-Mike DT1 MPCG My Site, http://www.milehidad.com/ and my Blog, http://www.milehighdad.net/.
Make Babies, Not War!
I Wanna Know How Forever Feels...
Overheard at the viewing
While peering into the casket:
"My God! It's full of stars."
-Will
gamingwithbaby.com | all your diapers are belong to us
my flickr
Hoax
Don't mean to be a repeater but if one looks at some of the greatest hoaxes of all time they were, in the end, reveled as such.
The Piltdown Man:
http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/piltdown.htm
And Photos of The Loch Ness Monster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lochnessmonster.jpg
The supposition in Moon Hoaxes is that there were dissenters within NASA, called "Whistle Blowers," that intentionally "flawed" the films etc, like an elaborate code that would one day be reveled. Given the enormousness of the Space Program I have to ask why has no one ever really come forward to say it didn't happen? More over why didn't the USSR ever claim that it never happened?
Anyhoo, I agree that way too much time is spent on these matters. Well...it's fun sometimes I have to admit.
Here is one of my faves:
http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbooth.html
I will say this, why are there no postmortem photos of Booth given his fame in life? And why was he buried in secret? Hum… :-)
Be Seeing You.
Jonthan
Skeptical Inquiry
Quote:
All these skeptic nay sayer web sites have nothing better to do than to play with your mind!
A true skeptic says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and uses science and reasoning to back up their claims. Skeptics are the ones who debunked 9/11 conspiracies and moon hoax conspiracies because they seek to defend the truth as we know it. I don't want to seem too jumpy about that word, but it's my personal interest so I want to defend it.
By the way, I'm one of those people who spends way too much time debunking 9/11 and JFK conspiracies. Any questions that people have about those two issues, I will be happy to answer in an obsessed, yet informed, way that will satisfy your doubts. Or I can point you to the places where I get my information.
I should just keep my mouth shut. :)
I know way too much on this subject at this point, so please forgive my nerdiness. Here ya go...
That is a popular myth that is untrue. We don't know when the second bullet hit the president (likely when he was behind the highway sign and not on film) and the Zapruder film does not have sound. Even the minimum attempts at guesses of when the second shot hit still makes it possible and has been verified so by subsequent tests. Also, the minimum time between shots goes down significantly if he detached the scope and used the iron sites (the scope gets in the way of the bolt), however, I don't think it's likely that he did this considering the gun was found with the scope attached.
Oswald was also a good enough shot to be classified as a "marksman" when he was in the militairy, and his tests indicated that he was a better shot at rapid firing his rifle than single shots.
Egad Man
Ah a worthy adversary!
I'll buy that. Absolutly. However when the rifle was recovered and paraded around the scope was attached. :-)
Anyway we should probably call this quits.
My hats off to you, TickTock. If you ever need obsessively collected information on The Civil War in particular US Grant or the Battle of Gettysburg (which Lee had no chance of winning I will jab) you know where I am.
Be Seeing You.
Jonathan
Because I'm a nitpicky philosopher
that's not Ockham's Razor. The Razor is an injunction from Aristotle to not multiply entities needlessly. With that in mind, the Razor might actually work against us here, since the additional entity might be considered to be the moon itself.
Parsimony, on the other hand, might require that we believe in the moon landing; but that's going to depend on how willing or unwilling we are to believe that we can be lied to en masse about something happening (or not happening) millions of miles away.
Thoughts about fatherhood, philosophy, fencing, and hockey abound at http://shawn-burns.livejournal.com/
Now with new Dad Blog!: http://backpackingdad.blogspot.com
Question
Itux wrote:
Still waiting for a real step on the moon...For now, I'm an unbeliever that the man has ever set a foot on the moon.
So, if NASA succeeds in returning to the moon with the help of the Ares rocket and the Orion vehicle, what is going to make you then believe that the success is for real? The newspapers, TV news coverage, and online coverage of the event? Are you going to make a more informed decision than I by being especially privy to additional knowledge that I won't be? Barring you being chosen as one of the astronauts slated for the Constellation program, I am really curious about what is going to be different this time to make you truly believe that we really stepped foot on the moon.
Randy
Cincinnati, OH
SAHD to Ryder (2 yrs)
Great spirits have always experienced violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
Ockham's Razor
Historically, you are right to invoke the reductionist theory, but it has grown in meaning since then.
The heuristic is now usually stated like this:
Quote:
Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.
So, that isn't to say that the moon landing wasn't faked, but it is to say that if you look at all the layers that we must add to the mix for the conspiracy to take shape it would start to collapse on it's own weight of probabilities. Among other things we are looking at the guys who walked on the moon to be complete and total liars, also the people who designed the lunar module, the people who engineered and worked on the launch, the people who planned for it to land on the moon, the people who helped cover it up, the people who fabricated moon rocks, etc...
And then we must take in the probability that nobody uttered a word about it since. It doesn't make sense.
Yeah. I said it was a nit pick.
And it was. I know that anyone who I'm likely to run into who uses the phrase "Ockham's Razor" is really going to mean something like parsimony.
But as an historian of philosophy I have to fight the good fight, wherever that good fight may be.
Thoughts about fatherhood, philosophy, fencing, and hockey abound at http://shawn-burns.livejournal.com/
Now with new Dad Blog!: http://backpackingdad.blogspot.com
Joined: 2007-11-12
Dad Points: 660