|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
31st January 2022, 10:26 AM | #121 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,300
|
|
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong. Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!! |
|
31st January 2022, 10:59 AM | #122 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,071
|
Its kinda like he would be upset if he found out that very few of the ancient and classical texts we have are not original and almost all are copies of copies of copies.
|
31st January 2022, 01:05 PM | #123 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
Why did the ancient Assyrians insist on writing all their important documents on slabs of dry mud? What complete idiots they were! They should have etched it all on stainless steel for posterity!
I'm not saying the ziggurat of Ur was a hoax, I'm just saying they should have documented it better if it was such a big deal. |
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
31st January 2022, 03:03 PM | #124 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
I was going to reply to some of Warp12’s characterizations of the reuse of telemetry tapes from Apollo 11, but Jay and others have covered it very thoroughly. Sure, he’s free to characterize it as stupid or mind-boggling or whatever. That’s his layman’s opinion.
I’ve been in aerospace for three-plus decades, and think such characterizations are overblown and not based in a good understanding of the record, nor of the operational realities of the time. But I am still annoyed, many years and jobs later, by the loss of mass spectrometer data from a satellite I operated, due to proprietary format obsolescence. Not to mention the loss of tens of thousands of hours of creep test data compiled long ago by a colleague that would have been incredibly useful in another program. No one had any idea what happened to it over years of storage entropy and corporate reorganization. It probably wound up in a landfill because nobody knew what it was any more. Unlike those examples, the reuse of the A11 tapes was a reasoned and defensible decision, and nothing was lost other than some clearer footage which in itself was part of a much larger record. And none of which affects the point of this thread, which is that Candace Owens is really remarkably stupid. |
31st January 2022, 03:18 PM | #125 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
Unfortunately the effect of that is that we only have many of them in translation, plus scribes would make "corrections" and change meanings for one reason or another. In this sense it is very similar. Information is lost by all the copying and translation. Perhaps all the original sayings of Jesus (whether a real man, or whatever people thought somebody called Jesus had said in AD50) are basically preserved in the Bible with reasonable precision, we'll never have the actual words. It's like only having Homer in a Latin translation. Something has been lost that cannot be recovered.
|
31st January 2022, 03:21 PM | #126 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
|
31st January 2022, 03:25 PM | #127 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 651
|
If that is indeed the point of this thread, I have to say that the evidence here is that she is decidedly ignorant on the subject of the Apollo 11 moonwalk tapes, but as we are ALL ignorant about a wide variety of subjects, I find it unreasonable to classify her as you did.
|
31st January 2022, 03:48 PM | #128 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 651
|
These are your first six posts in this thread. The first being your opinion, and naturally that is fine. The next four are all your responses to explanations for the not-so mind-boggling (to many here) mundane reasons the telemetry tapes were reused. Those four responses are conceptually vague, and out-of-context for the time the original data was transmitted. Your 6th post's sentence, "One that can't be buried in digital ink" is indeed an accusation that some conspiracy is actually in consideration. With your opinion unchanged still, by claiming the matter "amazingly" happened, you are either unable to comprehend the actual benign series of events, or trying to say something else, which you have yet to elucidate on. Which is it? |
31st January 2022, 03:51 PM | #129 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
|
31st January 2022, 03:52 PM | #130 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
|
31st January 2022, 04:04 PM | #131 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
I don't know; I'd say that one's on me. The argument shifted from it being the "highest quality" data to it being the "original" data after the usability of the data in its telemetric form came into the equation. If it's deemed unusable in the form it exists in, then its assumed quality is moot. That's why the horse had to change to being "original" data, and my rebuttal that caused that equestrian shift has been reclassified as "digital ink." I gather Warp12 was trying to accuse me of obfuscation.
|
31st January 2022, 04:06 PM | #132 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
Reading comprehension, context clues, the fact that she calls it light hearted fun, the fact that a few tweets later she is saying that her new favourite light hearted conspiracy theory is "Rebecca Black's song "Friday" is about the Kennedy assassination", the laughing crying faces, the fact that the replies taking her seriously are people with the same perspective of this forum.
It happens over and over. Somebody like her says something, conservatives interpret it as if it was something a normal human being said and shrug or smile, people like those on this thread lose their minds about some diabolical or crazed message that is being communicated to conservatives. |
31st January 2022, 04:10 PM | #133 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
I think what this shows is the exact opposite of what the OP intends. While people who are highly versed in all the evidence would say this is an absurd position to have, they say that only because they are experts who have a full and complete understanding of all the evidence.
It is understandable, and even laudable, that someone who is not an expert would listen to reasoned arguments (regardless if the reasoning is wrong) and have difficulty believing that humans walked on the moon using the equivalent of pocket calculators and slide rules over 60 years ago and we haven’t been back since. Yes, we landed on the moon, but it’s not crazy at all to see why some people have difficulty believing that given the technology and timeframes involved. Further, the government claiming this feat has a long history of lying. I’m not sure if you’ve ever listened to the fake moon landing arguments, but they are reasoned. Not saying they are right, but they are reasoned. |
31st January 2022, 04:11 PM | #134 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Originally Posted by Candace Owens (Twitter)
So we're laughing at her over it. It's some light-hearted fun. |
31st January 2022, 04:34 PM | #135 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 651
|
|
31st January 2022, 04:53 PM | #136 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 36,111
|
Did she admit this? Like her colleagues who excuse their lies by saying no sane person would believe what they said? You can always say it was a joke if you realize after the fact how stupid you were, but I don't think that's a very good excuse for saying stupid things in the first place.
|
__________________
Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Molière) A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details (John Ciardi) |
|
31st January 2022, 04:58 PM | #137 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
Why would she admit that a tweet she called lighthearted was not to be taken particularly seriously? This is like asking Trump whether he was going to disavow white supremacy after he'd done it countless times already. There is no point in her admitting it, just as there was no point in him denying it. The people asking for this won't accept it anyway.
|
31st January 2022, 05:32 PM | #138 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
|
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
31st January 2022, 05:42 PM | #139 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
|
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
31st January 2022, 05:54 PM | #140 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
That is your interpretation. Mine is that “lighthearted” was the intended tone, rather than she didn’t mean it. Which isn’t to say that she’s necessarily deeply attached to the stupid idea; but she did present it in all its brain-dead glory.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable. She said profoundly stupid things, or rather regurgitated profoundly stupid things that she read somewhere. It’s no shame to be ignorant about various subjects; we all are. It’s quite another thing to proudly parade one’s ignorance; at least this time it’s just a bit of cultural vandalism, not propounding stupid ideas about vaccines that encourage her readers to die for that stupidity and her engagement metrics. If I go on social media and start ”lightheartedly” propounding a conspiracy that doctors are covering up the fact that the spleen is actually responsible for respiration, you go right ahead and call me stupid. |
31st January 2022, 07:38 PM | #141 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
31st January 2022, 08:12 PM | #142 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
|
31st January 2022, 08:58 PM | #143 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 651
|
|
31st January 2022, 09:55 PM | #144 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 6,332
|
You can reason and rationalize all you want. Willful ignorance is the problem. Too many people either stop at curiosity and get stuck in an endless loop of JAQing off or "do their own research" in conspiracy theory safe spaces instead of sitting down and trying to learn the subject. There's no substitute for education. We don't need to give much credit to rationalized speculation and old adages when there's tons of documentation and analysis for something already.
|
31st January 2022, 10:21 PM | #145 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
I see what you did there - a subtle form of the appeal to ignorance. Maybe you didn’t realize you were doing it.
It’s not at all true that only experts who know “all the evidence” can see the absurdity of the claim that Apollo was hoaxed. Plenty of laymen have taken a bit of time to learn a few basic facts, or a particular general principle at even a non-mathematical level, which is all it takes to refute the majority of Apollo hoax claims. Most of the time, it doesn’t take an expert. It’s also very rare to find someone who can be described as “knowing all the evidence”. The Apollo record - scientific, technological, and programmatic; text, imagery, data, and physical - is vast beyond your realization and virtually fractal in detail. JayUtah is the closest person here to that idealized state, and I’m sure he would readily acknowledge there’s much of the record he doesn’t know in breadth, let alone in depth. I don’t have a problem with someone looking at the Moon and having a hard time believing we ever walked on it. It’s a completely natural reaction - a “reasonable” emotional response. It is by no means laudable to read some claim that one of humanity’s greatest scientific and technical achievements was a lie, and to accept such claims as reasonable or reasoned without interrogating the premise behind them even before tackling the details of the claim itself. There’s no explanation (taking a common conspiracist argument) for the apparent absence of a shadow in some photograph? Suppose, for the sake of argument, we can’t explain why we don’t see a shadow there. Is the more reasonable explanation that the Apollo program was faked, and the world’s engineers and scientists are all in on it, or maybe there’s just something about the photograph we haven’t figured out yet? Or to address your characterization: is it laudable to doubt Apollo because the computing technology used was relatively primitive compared to today’s, a half-century later? Or is it laudable to say, “Hey, I don’t actually know what it takes to control a spacecraft, or even what approach they took. Maybe I should read about it or ask an expert before giving any credence to this weird claim”? It’s not crazy; it’s just lazy. Furthermore, the government has a long history of lying and telling the truth. The “government” (as if it was the monolithic entity fancied by conspiracists) has published reams of truth about Apollo. Oceans of truth. More truth in more detail than you could peruse in a lifetime. But there’s no corresponding body of counter-Apollo truth. There’s just ignorance and lies and fantasies promulgated by conspiracists, and lots of mistakes, and most of them are pretty damn silly mistakes to boot. I’ve heard, or rather read, most of the various “fake Moon landing arguments”. No, the vast majority of them are not reasoned. There are appeals to ignorance, ignorant interpretations, baseless assertions, and plenty of outright lies. There are very few that rise to the level of “reasoned”, and they’re still all wrong. And I’ve seen very few that were even made, or at least argued, in good faith. |
31st January 2022, 10:22 PM | #146 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
|
31st January 2022, 10:25 PM | #147 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
You could do the math in dirt with a twig. We invented the math doing it longhand. You think Newton ran calculus by supercomputer?
Quote:
Quote:
They could doubt heavier than air aircraft under those premises, too. Or submarines, or anything else. That doesn't make their doubting laudible. It just means they have a higher bar to demonstrate superior knowledge of the relevant science. Twitterers who doubt the fuel needs on a Saturn V rocket are not normally even vaguely familiar with...well, anything involved with fuel use in breaking earth gravity and slingshotting to the next big orbiting body.. Questioning is dynamite. Learning is better still. Cynicism is mostly a pain in the ass. |
__________________
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain "Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet Last edited by Thermal; 31st January 2022 at 10:38 PM. Reason: autocorrect was sure it was a Saturn IV rocket |
|
31st January 2022, 10:52 PM | #148 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 36,111
|
I know it's just a little bit of arithmetic and stuff, but I seem to recall that we did fly to the moon a few times later, and even if we kind of forget the ten other astronauts who went to the moon and even drove around on it in the subsequent three years, if 1969 was over 60 years ago I'm older than I thought, or my calculator is broken! Far be it from me to say you can't have a "reasoned argument" based on a nearly total disregard of the obvious, but I think it kind of weakens it. I mean do you really have to be an expert and have a complete grasp of the evidence to subtract 1969 from 2022?
|
__________________
Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Molière) A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details (John Ciardi) |
|
31st January 2022, 10:55 PM | #149 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dharug & Gundungurra
Posts: 16,806
|
Interesting that the original data, the absolutely original moonwalk data including the video, is certainly still in existence. Just that retrieving it is going to be...difficult.
Simply out, the LEM antennas transmitted the lunar mission data and video back to Earth in real time, to be picked up by tracking radio telescopes around the world. From those terrestrial stations, the data was sent to Houston, where it was processed and recorded, as has been discussed in excessive detail already. However that signal didn't stop at Earth. It has kept on going ever since. So now it is just over 19,000 light-days (19,189, to be exact today) from the transmission point past Earth and into space. Granted, it has dissipated somewhat by now, but the data content should be as pure as the moment it was first sent back in July 1969. Getting it now is simply a process of chasing it down, or somehow standing in its way, and recording it again. I leave it to the rocket scientists to determine how that is going to be done. |
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015 |
|
31st January 2022, 11:19 PM | #150 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 651
|
Ha! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that although Flat Earth is unquestionably wrong, the galaxy itself is flat. So, once the radio signals reflect back off the ice walls that hem in our galaxy, we will be able to reconstruct them in their original state. Also, FYI, it is those ice walls responsible for it being so cold in space, and the other observed galaxies are just distorted reflections of our own. This is why NASA has never been able to show us a picture from outside our own galaxy.
Did I miss anything? |
1st February 2022, 01:30 AM | #151 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
1st February 2022, 01:37 AM | #152 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Fifty-three years ago, leading up to the first lunar landing, public and private schools were wall-to-wall science projects related to the space program. NASA was going full-tilt in the PR department making films, and putting together easy in-class projects that would help kids understand space travel...so they could explain it to their parents. That would last through Skylab at my grammar school, and in 7th grade we built and launched model rockets. There were easy-to-follow diagrams on using the earth and moon's gravity to help sling-shot the craft, the difference in gravity between the earth and the lunar surface was clearly explained.
Somewhere between 1980 and now schools seem to have back-slid to the point where there are enough under-educated people to make a ridiculous claim like the moon landings being faked a serious point of discussion. And by under-educated I mean failed 7th grade science. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
1st February 2022, 01:49 AM | #153 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
You remind me that the original tweet which mentions "the" moon landing did make me wonder whether the tweeter was unaware of there having been six landings. It adds "in 1969" which leaves open the possibility that they realised it was only the first of several, but it made me wonder.
|
1st February 2022, 01:55 AM | #154 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 651
|
Just seeing if anyone wanted to add on to the Poe's Law exercise. As for the moon cranks - the truly zealous ones - their willful ignorance just showcases the uselessness of unbridled pride. I wonder which would be worse, the possibility of being broken by losing so much they have invested by admitting they were fooled, or living with their unflinching stubbornness and thereby failing to be able to think critically. I personally believe the latter to be worse, but their own fear of the former is what seems to keep their blinders well fitted.
I realize none of that is really news to anyone. I just figured I should make it clear as to what perspective I hold. |
1st February 2022, 02:09 AM | #155 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 651
|
Sadly, even those 53 years ago, it was the children lingering at the back of the class who, for whatever reason(s), paid little attention during those teachings and became susceptible targets for the Apollo Project conspiracy theories. I think the novelty of actual space flight has since eroded interest in it as a whole, increasing the numbers of unenthusiastic students.
|
1st February 2022, 02:12 AM | #156 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
1st February 2022, 03:29 AM | #157 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
|
1st February 2022, 05:18 AM | #158 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
That was some of teh stupid, right there. There wasn’t just one lunar landing that year. Apollo 12 also landed on the Moon in 1969.
And Apollo 10 went to the Moon in 1969 and almost landed on it, with the LM descending to within about 50,000 ft if the surface in the final test prior to an actual landing. And Apollo 9 did operations in Earth orbit. So there were two lunar landings, three lunar missions, and four manned Apollo flights in 1969 alone. By itself, the number of landings that year is simply a bit of historical trivia. The difference is that most people aren’t making a profoundly stupid claim like the Apollo program was faked. “The lunar landing in 1969” is a sure sign of someone who has no idea at all what they’re talking about, but will happily say stupid things for attention and/or money. |
1st February 2022, 05:38 AM | #159 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
I've encountered numerous Apollo deniers who didn't know that there were any more than the Apollo 11 landing. Some were even of the impression that Apollo 11 was the only Apollo flight of any kind. I've seen people express their incredulity regarding their belief that NASA built one, never tested Saturn V, flew to the moon on its first and only launch, landed, returned, and never went back.
|
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
1st February 2022, 05:44 AM | #160 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
Well now I get to feel stupid too as I didn't appreciate Apollo 12 also flew in 1969. Especially since I'm currently watching a box set of "From the Earth to The Moon" and only recently saw the Apollo 12 episode "That's All There Is".
(I was five in 1969. I got it firmly into my young mind that moon missions were rare special occasions like birthdays or Christmas, so I guess every year they fly to the moon, right? I still sometimes struggle to remind myself that's wrong.) |
Thread Tools | |
|
|