Author Topic: Faking the moon landings  (Read 44713 times)

Offline NthBrick

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #570 on: January 16, 2020, 04:31:39 PM »


Quote
You think I’m talking out of my rear end, simply because you believe I lack the intelligence to understand how things work as you perceive them to work, but receiving a higher education and passing your exams, just means that you had a good enough memory to put down on paper all the BS fed to you in class.

Testing memorization sounds more reminiscent of grade school than higher ed to me.
Geez, if my engineering exams were based on just some mediocre memorization of facts rather than actual understanding of the subject matter, they'd be a lot easier. Even cambo might be able to pass them.

Offline Matt D

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #571 on: January 16, 2020, 04:47:21 PM »
Geez, if my engineering exams were based on just some mediocre memorization of facts rather than actual understanding of the subject matter, they'd be a lot easier. Even cambo might be able to pass them.

Perfunctory memorization of factoids, definitions, formulas, etc. is a method I recall many of my engineering classmates trying to use as a way of "squeaking by" some tough courses and exams.  Presumably, the idea was to try to fake it just enough to earn course credit, while putting in minimum up front effort.   

Of course, most of those classmates struggled to maintain passing grades, and many of them flunked out at or before 3rd year.  My 3 roommates in 2nd year are glowing examples of this.  They thought they were cheating the system with their lazy methods but eventually the material got too deep and they sunk like rocks, ultimately going home with a mountain of student debt and no degree to show for it. 

That's why I always have a chuckle when uneducated conspiracy addicts try to characterize education in science and engineering as nothing but an elaborate indoctrination scheme where everybody is just told what is what, and they blindly believe it without ever working through anything themselves.  Of course, these delusional conspiracy types are, almost without exception, so far removed from having such an education that they have no way of knowing just how silly they sound.   


 

Offline jfb

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #572 on: January 16, 2020, 05:06:19 PM »
I can't at all see anything "ridiculously insane" about this boot print argument. Could you please enlarge on that comment? I would like to understand why you've said that. Perhaps you just don't know enough about it (which is the most common trait of hoax-believers)

The question asked was “How did the regolith produce the famous bootprint if dry sand was used?”

Maybe it’s the original question that’s the confusing part, as it implies that I’m suggesting that dry sand was used in the photo. My claim is that dry sand was used in the film footage, so I’m pretty sure that the question he was asking should have read “How did the regolith produce the famous bootprint if dry sand was used in the film footage?” So to me, it implies that he is under the illusion that the boot print photo had to be taken under the same conditions as the film footage, and therefore disproving the dry sand claim. I’m sorry, but I can’t think of a way to make it any clearer, and if I could, then I suspect my neighbours’ cat would understand. Maybe the gentleman who asked the question could clarify what he meant, as I’m sure that paint should have dried by now.

You see, this is the problem with you people, as you take everything you are told as the gospel truth and therefore no one is allowed to question it, even though there is no real evidence to support these alleged facts. Your arguments are all based on the assumption that your idols would never lie to us, so you only see what you want to see. There are people who swear they have seen the earths curve from a plane, but they only see it because they want to see it, simply because their minds are too gullible and weak to distinguish between reality and fantasy. (I’m still not a flat-earther, but I’m getting there).

Babble.

Quote
You are told that the alleged moon regolith, as you wannabe scientists like to call it, reacts differently than it would on earth, which blinds you to the fact that it reacts in exactly the same way as sand does in an indoor environment on earth. You think a short video segment showing people in Zero G proves that they are in space because you are assured that only 30 seconds max is possible in a Zero G plane.

I've done the math on that before, but we'll do it again. 

Typical civilian airliners cruise between 39,000 to 41,000 feet (11800 to 12500 meters), but we'll start at an even 50000 feet (15240 meters).  To simulate weightlessness, the aircraft flies in a parabolic arc, using engines to compensate for drag, such that you are accelerating towards the ground at 9.8 m/s2

Distance formula is d = d0 + v0t + 0.5at2.  We'll assume d0 and v0 of 0 at the top of the arc, so that simplifies to d = 0.5at2.  Solving for t, we get t = sqrt(2d / a). 

Plugging in 15240 for d and 9.8 for a, we get 55 seconds to fall 50000 feet (neglecting air resistance, which again the aircraft does by using its engines to compensate for aerodynamic drag).  However, that assumes we fly all the way into the ground, which aircraft tend not to do if they can help it.  The actual gravity trainer aircraft tend to limit the maneuver to 2500 meters (falling from 9700 down to 7200 meters, at least based on the chart on the Wikipedia page).  That gives us a total "weightless" (free fall) time of around 22 seconds. 

I don't believe that just because i've been told that.  I believe it because that's how it is.  If you drop something while standing on the Earth's surface, it will be accelerated towards the ground at 9.8 m/s2, neglecting air resistance or other effects.  That means it will hit the surface in a finite amount of time.  It takes less than a minute for something to fall 50000 feet (again, neglecting air resistance). 

You have a problem with any of that, take it up with Newton and Galileo and the thousands of people who've replicated basic mechanics since then.

Quote
You accept that the moons’ surface is so reflective that we can see a man descending a ladder on the shadow side of the LM, lit up like a Christmas tree, while the picture below shows a rock with its shadow side in total darkness. Did the person taking that photo forget to don his ultra-reflective spacesuit?



Jay already covered this one.  The rock in the original image is indeed illuminated.  The copy you're looking at is more contrasty than the original. 

Quote
You think the moon rocks are genuine because you believe that geologists from around the world have confirmed their authenticity, but they’ve confirmed nothing of the sort. The only people that could possibly vouch for their authenticity are the people directly involved in the alleged collection of the samples. An alleged moon rock doesn’t contain one single property that can’t be found or manufactured on earth,

Except for having been bombarded by solar wind for the last couple of billion years, but hey...

Quote
but you still insist that they would be impossible to fake. We are assured that it would be impossible to find or manufacture 850 pounds of moon rock, but you have no proof of this amount of rock and soil actually existing.

You assume that steering a craft in space is easy because you are told so, and you think you have the science to back you up, and there is even one “dude” on here that seems to think a jet aircraft would work in space. People like that should be locked up for their own safety. Let’s take the Trans-lunar injection as an example, because when that rocket engine bursts into life, the sudden jolt would be like inflating a party balloon and releasing it,

How much of a jolt?  Quantify your answer. 

Quote
and that on-board computer coupled with those mechanical gimbals wouldn’t stand a chance of keeping up with the corrections that would be required,

Why not?  Even the most primitive 1960s-era computer was faster than a human's reaction time.  Even if it's only updating a few dozen times a second, that's far faster than any human could hope to achieve.

Quote
and the same goes for the lift-off from the moon. I have now came to the conclusion that if space does in fact exist in the manner we have been educated to believe, then all space flight would be pointless, as controlled navigation would be impossible due to there being no air to stabilize the craft.

You've heard of Isaac Newton, right?  Smart dude.  Figured out that momentum is conserved - that is, if you push something away from you, that thing pushes back with equal force in the opposite direction.  If you fire a rocket engine in space, it pushes you in a direction opposite of its exhaust.  If you place tiny rocket engines at strategic places on your spacecraft, then you can steer in a vacuum.

For a current example, see the Falcon 9 booster in the following video after separation (timestamp 17:39, or T+2:40):



You see the booster using its cold-gas nitrogen thrusters to re-orient itself for entry (being outside of the Earth's sensible atmosphere already).
 
Quote
You think I’m talking out of my rear end, simply because you believe I lack the intelligence to understand how things work as you perceive them to work, but receiving a higher education and passing your exams, just means that you had a good enough memory to put down on paper all the BS fed to you in class. Intellect isn’t something you learn in class as we are all born with a smidgen of intellect, which grows as we get older and wiser, but sadly for some, this intellect is suppressed and not allowed to grow, probably due to a sheltered upbringing and a lack of real life experiences.

So listen carefully, it was 1969, do you understand? Ok I’ll say it again, it was 1969, you children have been conned. You are simply too young to understand, as you were born after the indoctrination started back in the sixties, and you have no first-hand experience of those events.

You know, some of us were born before 1969.  At least a few people here were already in their teens and twenties by then. 

1969 wasn't the goddamned Dark Ages.  We had supersonic aircraft and nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers and ICBMs in 1969.  We had spy satellites and digital computers.  The technology was there to go to the Moon.  It wasn't easy, but it was more than possible. 

Quote
 
Anyone my age who believes in the moon landings must have been too high on LSD to take any notice and the rest of you have been conditioned to think in a way that ignores logic. You have the right to have an opinion, but until you come up with some hard evidence to back up your theories, then that’s all you have, an opinion and nothing more.

Edit: I wrote the above comment some months back, but never got around to posting it as I had grew bored arguing with a bunch of fools who’s only defence is blind faith. Since then however it suddenly hit me that I myself were only half awake, as I now realise the full extent of this “global” deception, so I’ll leave you to live out this ridiculous fantasy that you call reality. We will all go to our graves, not knowing the true reason for our existence, but at least I won’t go to my grave as dumb as the day I was born. In case I don’t see ya, good afternoon, good evening and goodnight!

More projection than an IMAX, there.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2020, 05:34:47 PM by jfb »

Offline Britmax

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #573 on: January 16, 2020, 06:27:16 PM »
"You are simply too young to understand, as you were born after the indoctrination started back in the sixties, and you have no first-hand experience of those events."

 I was 12 in 1969. I was surprised at your memory of a lot of Midwich Cuckoos wandering about hanging on the Government's every word. The hippies I saw putting flowers in the barrels of rifles, the students protesting about political changes and for Civil  Rights must not have happened.

Do yourself a favour, though. I would recommend some listening: "For What it's Worth" by Buffalo Springfield or "Ohio" by Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, perhaps.

A British professor called David Caute wrote a book about the times. Well, he may have written more that one but try this one specifically. It's called "1968: The Year of the Barricades". I wonder why he would call it that when everyone was as compliant as you imply?

Oh, and I'm sure I heard about something called the "Aldermaston Marches". You may want to  find out what they were.

Yeah, no-one questioned the Government in the sixties. Riiiiight.   

Offline Peter B

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 897
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #574 on: January 17, 2020, 08:48:21 AM »
My turn...

I can't at all see anything "ridiculously insane" about this boot print argument. Could you please enlarge on that comment? I would like to understand why you've said that. Perhaps you just don't know enough about it (which is the most common trait of hoax-believers)

The question asked was “How did the regolith produce the famous bootprint if dry sand was used?”

Maybe it’s the original question that’s the confusing part, as it implies that I’m suggesting that dry sand was used in the photo. My claim is that dry sand was used in the film footage, so I’m pretty sure that the question he was asking should have read “How did the regolith produce the famous bootprint if dry sand was used in the film footage?” So to me, it implies that he is under the illusion that the boot print photo had to be taken under the same conditions as the film footage, and therefore disproving the dry sand claim. I’m sorry, but I can’t think of a way to make it any clearer, and if I could, then I suspect my neighbours’ cat would understand. Maybe the gentleman who asked the question could clarify what he meant, as I’m sure that paint should have dried by now.

Even though the photographic evidence shows the surface of the Moon is covered by a very fine powder - a substance which holds boot prints excellently, even when it's dry. That's why you can have fun with talcum powder or flour, creating detailed impressions in a dry substance.

And for bonus points you can recreate the effect of rocket exhaust on the lunar surface by spraying air down at your choice of powder. I've done it (you know, done it rather than accepted someone else's description), and the appearance of the powder after the air has sprayed it is remarkably similar to the surface of the Moon around the LM engine bells.

Quote
You see, this is the problem with you people, as you take everything you are told as the gospel truth...

But we're supposed to blindly accept your evidence-free assertions "as the gospel truth". Double standard much?

Quote
...and therefore no one is allowed to question it, even though there is no real evidence to support these alleged facts. Your arguments are all based on the assumption that your idols would never lie to us, so you only see what you want to see.

Seriously? Even in high school science we were generating and reproducing physical phenomena in our experiments, rather than simply accepting what our teachers told us. Gravitational acceleration on Earth? Calculated by dropping weights attached to a ticker-tape off a balcony (with a lookout to let us know if a teacher was approaching we could drop the weight onto) and measuring the distances between marks on the tape. Temperature of Absolute Zero? Calculated as part of a gas experiment I don't remember well.

So when jfb says that gravitational acceleration is 9.8 m/s/s I know that's right because I calculated it.

Quote
There are people who swear they have seen the earths curve from a plane, but they only see it because they want to see it, simply because their minds are too gullible and weak to distinguish between reality and fantasy. (I’m still not a flat-earther, but I’m getting there).

Well, before you get there, why not try this little experiment...

1. Pull out your favourite flat earth map (you can choose because apparently FEers haven't worked out what shape the continents are...funny that).

2. On your FE map, draw lines connecting these three cities: Santiago, Chile; Sydney, Australia; and Los Angeles, USA. Note that the line Santiago-Sydney passes close to Los Angeles.

3. Using the search engine of your choice, find out the flight times for Santiago-Sydney, Santiago-Los Angeles and Los Angeles-Sydney.

4. Explain why the flight time for Santiago-Sydney is much less than the combined flight times Santiago-Los Angeles and Los Angeles-Sydney.

5. Explain why anyone would want to perpetrate a "globe earth conspiracy". Seriously, if the Earth is flat, what's the point of hiding this? For bonus points, explain the existence of Norie's Epitome of Practical Navigation, first published in 1805. (Seriously, look it up, it's actually on the Internet!)

Quote
You are told that the alleged moon regolith, as you wannabe scientists like to call it, reacts differently than it would on earth, which blinds you to the fact that it reacts in exactly the same way as sand does in an indoor environment on earth.

Nope, it doesn't. Explain why the lunar rover didn't leave a suspended dust trail behind it like vehicles do when they drive down dirt roads.

Quote
You think a short video segment showing people in Zero G proves that they are in space because you are assured that only 30 seconds max is possible in a Zero G plane.

So how do you explain the half-hour long videos of astronauts in Zero G on board the International Space Station?

Quote
You think the moon rocks are genuine because you believe that geologists from around the world have confirmed their authenticity, but they’ve confirmed nothing of the sort. The only people that could possibly vouch for their authenticity are the people directly involved in the alleged collection of the samples. An alleged moon rock doesn’t contain one single property that can’t be found or manufactured on earth...

Yeah, um, remember that "gospel truth" thing? Evidence, please.

Quote
...but you still insist that they would be impossible to fake. We are assured that it would be impossible to find or manufacture 850 pounds of moon rock, but you have no proof of this amount of rock and soil actually existing.

Yeah, actually we do.

Quote
You assume that steering a craft in space is easy because you are told so, and you think you have the science to back you up, and there is even one “dude” on here that seems to think a jet aircraft would work in space. People like that should be locked up for their own safety. Let’s take the Trans-lunar injection as an example, because when that rocket engine bursts into life, the sudden jolt would be like inflating a party balloon and releasing it, and that on-board computer coupled with those mechanical gimbals wouldn’t stand a chance of keeping up with the corrections that would be required...

Evidence please.

Quote
...and the same goes for the lift-off from the moon.

Evidence please.

Quote
I have now came to the conclusion that if space does in fact exist in the manner we have been educated to believe, then all space flight would be pointless, as controlled navigation would be impossible due to there being no air to stabilize the craft.

Evidence please.

Quote
You think I’m talking out of my rear end, simply because you believe I lack the intelligence to understand how things work as you perceive them to work, but receiving a higher education and passing your exams, just means that you had a good enough memory to put down on paper all the BS fed to you in class. Intellect isn’t something you learn in class as we are all born with a smidgen of intellect, which grows as we get older and wiser, but sadly for some, this intellect is suppressed and not allowed to grow, probably due to a sheltered upbringing and a lack of real life experiences.

No, we think you're wrong because (a) you assert things without providing any evidence to support your assertions, (b) you assert things we can independently check for ourselves, and conclude to our satisfaction that you're wrong, (c) you refuse to accept that people can prove you wrong in multiple ways, and (d) you refuse to accept that you might be wrong.

Quote
So listen carefully, it was 1969, do you understand? Ok I’ll say it again, it was 1969, you children have been conned. You are simply too young to understand, as you were born after the indoctrination started back in the sixties, and you have no first-hand experience of those events. Anyone my age who believes in the moon landings must have been too high on LSD to take any notice and the rest of you have been conditioned to think in a way that ignores logic. You have the right to have an opinion, but until you come up with some hard evidence to back up your theories, then that’s all you have, an opinion and nothing more.

Ri-i-i-ight. Apart from all the people who have all this "hard evidence" you claim doesn't exist...

Quote
Edit: I wrote the above comment some months back, but never got around to posting it as I had grew bored arguing with a bunch of fools who’s only defence is blind faith. Since then however it suddenly hit me that I myself were only half awake, as I now realise the full extent of this “global” deception, so I’ll leave you to live out this ridiculous fantasy that you call reality. We will all go to our graves, not knowing the true reason for our existence, but at least I won’t go to my grave as dumb as the day I was born. In case I don’t see ya, good afternoon, good evening and goodnight!

Oh come on, share with us what this deception is. Please don't say we're too dumb to understand.

Remember, we mightn't accept it, but we should just about be able to understand it. (I'm assuming you understand the difference... :-) )

Offline NthBrick

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #575 on: January 17, 2020, 02:35:58 PM »

Perfunctory memorization of factoids, definitions, formulas, etc. is a method I recall many of my engineering classmates trying to use as a way of "squeaking by" some tough courses and exams.  Presumably, the idea was to try to fake it just enough to earn course credit, while putting in minimum up front effort.   

Of course, most of those classmates struggled to maintain passing grades, and many of them flunked out at or before 3rd year.  My 3 roommates in 2nd year are glowing examples of this.  They thought they were cheating the system with their lazy methods but eventually the material got too deep and they sunk like rocks, ultimately going home with a mountain of student debt and no degree to show for it. 

That's why I always have a chuckle when uneducated conspiracy addicts try to characterize education in science and engineering as nothing but an elaborate indoctrination scheme where everybody is just told what is what, and they blindly believe it without ever working through anything themselves.  Of course, these delusional conspiracy types are, almost without exception, so far removed from having such an education that they have no way of knowing just how silly they sound.   


 
Entirely true. That isn't to say you don't need to have some formulas in mind (or quick ways to derive them), but without a fundamental understanding of what they mean and how they operate, you're just setting yourself up for failure.

And it's quite telling about how much "research" these hoax believers do when they pretend to be authorities on things that they don't have even the most basic understanding of. Cambo, of course, is a great example of not having any understanding of basic physics to the point that he believes zero-g airplanes can sustain the zero-g effect for longer than about 30 seconds, when a little bit of math using formulae students learn in high school (and that are applied routinely in industry) show that he's wrong. The ignorance and sheer hubris are staggering.

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #576 on: January 17, 2020, 04:08:44 PM »
Ze flounce, she is hard to steek.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1760
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #577 on: January 17, 2020, 09:29:37 PM »
Yeah, no-one questioned the Government in the sixties. Riiiiight.   

Yes, right, absolutely no-one questioned the Government in the 1960s.....

Sheeple bring compliant in the 1960s

or the 1970s....

Sheeple bring compliant in the 1970s
NOTE: On May 4 it will be 50 years since that particular effing disgrace

More sheeple bring compliant in the 1970s
« Last Edit: January 17, 2020, 09:36:59 PM by smartcooky »
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
► Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3240
    • Clavius
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #578 on: January 18, 2020, 12:54:00 PM »
Perfunctory memorization of factoids, definitions, formulas, etc. is a method I recall many of my engineering classmates trying to use as a way of "squeaking by" some tough courses and exams.

I remember wishing for shortcuts while I was trying to cram all that information into my head.  You're absolutely right that the successful graduates were the ones that found some way to let the deeper understanding "click."    These days the equivalent behavior seems to be frantic Googling for specific formulas and techniques.  In the face of that, my response tends to be, "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding."  The cargo-cult approach simply doesn't work no matter what side of an issue you stand on.

Quote
That's why I always have a chuckle when uneducated conspiracy addicts try to characterize education in science and engineering as nothing but an elaborate indoctrination scheme where everybody is just told what is what, and they blindly believe it without ever working through anything themselves.

I speculate there are two reasons for that.  Ideologically, they want to believe that the Establishment is just as you say:  rote indoctrination and unthinking obedience.  They want to set up a situation where they're the ones who are the deep thinkers and the astute observers.  Practically, they want to believe that people who represent themselves as qualified are just frantically Googling for rote answers too, and are just momentarily better at it than they.  Which is to say, they want to believe that there's no real expertise to be had -- i.e., that there is no such thing as actual expertise -- and that their ad hoc methods are just as good a way of exploring any problem.

Quote
Of course, these delusional conspiracy types are, almost without exception, so far removed from having such an education that they have no way of knowing just how silly they sound.

They really do sound silly, don't they?  It's worth mentioning that at least a couple claimants we've seen here and elsewhere seem to have had some engineering education, and perhaps even received degrees and professional credentials.  I surmise they are probably more of your former roommates' ilk.  They seem to be trying to misapply shortcuts and half-baked methods.  The vast majority of claimants, however, really do seem to be faking it.

The general pattern is one we see over and over again.  The claimant arrives with some set of specific claims that sound in engineering and science.  The regulars -- who are variously qualified in pertinent subjects like aviation, engineering, geology, scientific methods, photography, TV and stage production, history, and so forth -- criticize the claim.  The claimant flounders for a while trying to rehabilitate the claim without having to demonstrate too much actual knowledge.  Then at a certain point there's an inflection in the argument.  The claimant appeals to "common sense" or to some other (supposedly higher) form of thinking by which he is still somehow right.  The post-inflection argument basically says, "Your knowledge, experience, and expertise in the details of my argument doesn't matter.  I'm just more in tune with things than you are, or I have more common sense."

You have to laugh, because it's such a blatant change of horse.  The initial argument is, "I know more about the science than you do."  Then the argument literally turns to, "The science doesn't matter."  Of course it matters.  It always matters.  And it was obvious that it mattered to the claimant when he first arrived and tried to play the expert.

Other openings like the Just Asking Questions approach still rely on the premise that the questions have scientific foundation -- which they rarely do.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3240
    • Clavius
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #579 on: January 18, 2020, 12:57:42 PM »
Yes, right, absolutely no-one questioned the Government in the 1960s.....

People were questioning Apollo at the time.  Not its authenticity, but its propriety.  They wanted to know why so much money was being spent on a program that was perceived to be taking money away from social programs, etc.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Obviousman

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 503
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #580 on: January 18, 2020, 05:13:43 PM »
To go a little off-topic, the discussion regarding 'rote learning' versus 'understanding' was demonstrated to me when undergoing seamanship training in the Navy. You could see some people who knew the 'rules of the road' (AKA International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea or COLREGs) by rote but could not apply the rules.

On the bridge simulator a situation is developing and the instructor can see the student wasn't taking the required action. They might prompt the student:

"What does Rule 8e say?"

And the student would reply:

"If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion."

The instructor would wait but the student isn't reacting. They'd ask the student to describe the situation and what the student needed to do. The student doesn't know, so again the instructor asks about the rule.

Again the student recites it by rote... but still doesn't understand it and therefore cannot apply the rule to a situation.

The funny thing was that the COLREGs had to be memorised word perfect. You were tested regularly and the pass mark was 100%. There were people who could memorise them but not apply them, and others who always got some little thing wrong (e.g. saying '... must be taken...' instead of '...shall be taken...') but were excellent at shiphandling and could be relied upon to safely navigate the ship.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1760
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #581 on: January 19, 2020, 02:23:07 PM »
These days the equivalent behavior seems to be frantic Googling for specific formulas and techniques.  In the face of that, my response tends to be, "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding."

That is a very nice variation on a Samuel Johnson theme

"Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

The claimant flounders for a while trying to rehabilitate the claim without having to demonstrate too much actual knowledge.  Then at a certain point there's an inflection in the argument.  The claimant appeals to "common sense" or to some other (supposedly higher) form of thinking by which he is still somehow right.  The post-inflection argument basically says, "Your knowledge, experience, and expertise in the details of my argument doesn't matter.  I'm just more in tune with things than you are, or I have more common sense."

And that is a real trap for young players. Sometimes in engineering; more often in physics and other sciences, the truth/reality can be counter-intuitive. On  those occasions, common sense needs to be set aside because it becomes a hindrance to understanding.
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
► Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2918
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #582 on: January 27, 2020, 07:29:59 PM »
Well I'm disappointed in American Heroes Channel as they present Chasing Conspiracies--Cold War in Space S1E8.  Here they trotted out Bart, Marcus and some guy named DeGroot, new to me, pushing forth their old tired clap trap.  At least they have do have some individual debunking the idiocy.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Ranb

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #583 on: January 27, 2020, 10:42:31 PM »
Gerard Degroot?  I started reading his book, Dark Side of the Moon.  It was okay until I got to the part about the Space Pen.  He repeated the "NASA spent millions on a pen that works in space v the Soviets used a pencil" myth; so I stopped reading at that point.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3240
    • Clavius
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #584 on: January 28, 2020, 12:13:26 AM »
Gerard Degroot?  I started reading his book, Dark Side of the Moon.  It was okay until I got to the part about the Space Pen.  He repeated the "NASA spent millions on a pen that works in space v the Soviets used a pencil" myth; so I stopped reading at that point.

Oh, that guy.  Yeah, I gave him about ten minutes' attention before figuring out he didn't really have the mental wattage to make even a plausible conspiracy theory.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams