Latest Thread Images

Poll: Were the moon landings fake?
Jul 15, 2009 at 10:51 PM Post #137 of 468
Jul 15, 2009 at 11:05 PM Post #138 of 468
Quote:

Originally Posted by dallan /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I don't think anyone was questioning the space program, the question was about landing on the moon.


That's a good point, not to mention the fact that the tone of my post was quite insulting. I winced when I re-read it. There's no reason that vehement disagreement can't be respectfully expressed in a rational discussion.

I definitely tend get to worked up about subjects I care about, and I have a bad tendencey to adopt a very nasty tone. It's happened a number of times over the years that I've been posting here, and I almost always regret it afterward. I always resolve to do better, and generally do, for a while.

Maybe I need to start awarding myself chips, the way participants in twelve-step programs earn them (1 day sober, 1 week sober, 1 year sober, etc.) Except in my case it would be more like "1 day without obnoxious outburst, 1 week without..."
 
Jul 15, 2009 at 11:06 PM Post #139 of 468
Quote:

Originally Posted by Samgotit /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Thank you, now on to learning how to spell mistaken.


The landing was definably not faked. I know. Harrison "Jack" Schmitt is my AA sponsor, pinochle partner and drinking buddy.


Wait. AA sponsor and drinking buddy?
 
Jul 15, 2009 at 11:19 PM Post #140 of 468
Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif
That's a good point, not to mention the fact that the tone of my post was quite insulting. I winced when I re-read it. There's no reason that vehement disagreement can't be respectfully expressed in a rational discussion.

I definitely tend get to worked up about subjects I care about, and I have a bad tendencey to adopt a very nasty tone. It's happened a number of times over the years that I've been posting here, and I almost always regret it afterward. I always resolve to do better, and generally do, for a while.

Maybe I need to start awarding myself chips, the way participants in twelve-step programs earn them (1 day sober, 1 week sober, 1 year sober, etc.) Except in my case it would be more like "1 day without obnoxious outburst, 1 week without..."



Heh, you need an Epiphany (milkweg should be able to help you out with a few).


I like your outbursts, Doc. Don't give them up completely.
At least have one now and again?
 
Jul 15, 2009 at 11:45 PM Post #141 of 468
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Yeah, it's spelled "teat"
smily_headphones1.gif
It is delicious, I might add, and low maintenance. Come try.


Gosh...you got me there. Good one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. B /img/forum/go_quote.gif
LOL... seriously?

Your beliefs obviously came from somewhere... right? It shouldn't be hard to at least drop the name of a person, books... something. I'm not asking for a bibliography. I'm just asking who/what do you trust? If you discount "the media," historical records and empirical/physical evidence, what are you left with for reference?


Are you really this obtuse or do you just enjoy pissing people off? When did I ever say I don't rely on historical records and empirical/physical evidence? I simply said I don't believe that Wikipedia is a source of truth. That's it...period. If you take personal issue with that, perhaps you need to seek professional help. In any case, it's not my problem. You can rely on whatever information source your heart desires.

Sorry for derailing the thread folks.
 
Jul 16, 2009 at 12:33 AM Post #142 of 468
Quote:

Originally Posted by ecclesand /img/forum/go_quote.gif
When did I ever say I don't rely on historical records and empirical/physical evidence? I simply said I don't believe that Wikipedia is a source of truth. That's it...period.


Yeah, we got that. What is a "source of truth?"
 
Jul 16, 2009 at 4:38 AM Post #144 of 468
I am genuinely appalled at the level of ignorance shown in this thread. Why some question the validity of the moon landings without proper understanding is beyond me. All "discrepancies" in the landings can easily be explained with research and basic scientific knowledge. I've studied both sides in the past and the conspiracy theorists' arguments never hold water.

I want to say more but I'll hold back for civility's sake.

Edit: I'm sorry if this post came across as being overly harsh. I probably shouldn't post when I'm as angry as I am.
 
Jul 16, 2009 at 6:01 AM Post #146 of 468
I have a hypothesis that may explain the results of this poll. A key point to remember is that only members who click on the thread link would compose the population of voters. So, who would click on the thread link?

Well, first of all it is only head-fi members who hang-out in the the General Discussion forum. That's certainly not all head-fi members, and my first conjecture is that it is members who are not just at head-fi to discuss headphones - they also come to head-fi for non-headphone discussions. Does that make them more social? More willing to engage in debate? Perhaps.

Secondly, the poll population would be a subset of the visitors of the General Discussion forum who found a poll about fake moon landings interesting. OK, who would that include? My second conjecture is that it is members who fall into two general camps - those who are interested in space travel, physics and other aerospace related topics, and those that are interested in government conspiracy theories and other types of sinister government activities.

So, what does that really mean about the poll population? I posit that it means the poll results may not be all that surprising. It really means: ~25% of the members who were interested enough in the belief of fake moon landings voted that the landings were a fake. I think this is typical of nearly all internet polls. They are not a random population sample, and we can't treat the results of the poll in the same way as you would a true random (or even semi-random) population poll.

*sigh* yet another TL;DR post - I hate it when I get stuck in maximum verbosity mode...
 
Jul 16, 2009 at 6:27 AM Post #147 of 468
Quote:

Originally Posted by billybob_jcv /img/forum/go_quote.gif
[...]So, what does that really mean about the poll population? I posit that it means the poll results may not be all that surprising. It really means: ~25% of the members who were interested enough in the belief of fake moon landings voted that the landings were a fake. I think this is typical of nearly all internet polls. They are not a random population sample, and we can't treat the results of the poll in the same way as you would a true random (or even semi-random) population poll.


I think your reasoning is sound. As for myself, I do have an interest in space travel and associated technologies.

But my motivation didn't stop there. I posted the poll after reading the NYT article that I linked to in my OP. I was a bit shocked by the figures in the story, and I was curious to see how many people around here subscribe to the hoax theory. Let it suffice to say that I was, and continue to be, surprised by the number of skeptics.
 
Jul 16, 2009 at 7:04 AM Post #148 of 468
The thing with this conspiracy theory in particular is that it has 'fresh legs' the more often it is brought up.

There are 2 (or more?) generations of people who have not grown up anywhere near the monumetal events and times that the moon landing happened.

So isn't it only natural, where we live in a world where we can't 'fix' immediate earthbound issues, like poverty, hunger, disease, climate change etc etc, that people of a certain age can easily believe such a massive project was ever real?

And the peddlers out to make a buck out of such rubbish know this, and that they'll also upset those who can remember. If would be far easier to actually send a man to the moon than fake it and fool the entire world, with only a handful of people knowing 'the truth'.

Gees, Bill Clinton and one intern, in a room on their own couldn't keep a secret!

And conspiracy theories in general thrive of people's ignorance of specific topics (such as the 'science' behind some of the moon hoax theories) and their imagination, or lack thereof.
 
Jul 16, 2009 at 7:34 AM Post #149 of 468
Keeping it civil, 4 simple questions:

01. Where are the stars in the lunar surface photographs?
02. Why was the flag waving despite there being no air on the moon?
03. Why was there no blast crater beneath the lunar lander?
04. Why did the camera not melt due to high levels of heat and radiation?
 
Jul 16, 2009 at 8:26 AM Post #150 of 468
Quote:

Originally Posted by Graphicism /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Keeping it civil, 4 simple questions:

01. Where are the stars in the lunar surface photographs?
02. Why was the flag waving despite there being no air on the moon?
03. Why was there no blast crater beneath the lunar lander?
04. Why did the camera not melt due to high levels of heat and radiation?


All questions posed my hoaxers/theorists banking on the very ignorance/assumptions of space conditions that they expect people not to know the answers to.

And all easily explained by anyone in this field of science. I saw a hoax-busting documentary man years ago that explained all these (and it's the same things that keep coming up - there's never any new 'theories'), and there's probably links to these in this thread somewhere.

I'm sure DrBenway can answer any of these, as I can't remember...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top