Haruspex
先輩
- 30 Aug 2007
- 2,324
- 96
He's a *****. A well-educated *****, an intelligent *****, an entertaining *****, but a ***** nevertheless.
***** stands for p.rick.
Do you think we really landed on the moon?
- Thread starter Amigo
- Start date
He's a *****. A well-educated *****, an intelligent *****, an entertaining *****, but a ***** nevertheless.
***** stands for p.rick.
Elizabeth
先輩
- 22 Apr 2003
- 9,839
- 135
Really ? Ever watch him get nailed by his own straw man arguments to the point of anger, back tracking and hurridly changing the subject ? Definately worth a listen.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1378535008901640650&q=dawkins
I don't want to get this far off track, but Dawkins' arguments are actually ridiculously easy to refute for anyone with a moderate versing in theology or religious philosophy. Half the time he either avoids his own theory or doesn't even seem aware of their more sophisticated versions. The man is shrill, obnoxious and ill-informed on every level.
Haruspex
先輩
- 30 Aug 2007
- 2,324
- 96
I agree with much of what he says, its only his crusade I don't like. Theists are hard, if not impossible, to convince that their beliefs are wrong and so most of the time debates only serve to anger both parties.
Anyhow, back to the topic. I once had a colleague, with a Ph. D in aerospace engineering from a respected engineering school in UK, who believed in the conspiracy theory. He was very misinformed, for example, he thought Apollo 11 was the only landing ever done, etc.
I think, as Emoni said, critical, inquisitive mind is always good, as long as they are logically sound. But the arguments put forward in the video ChrisGR posted are quite childish and they keep moving the goalpost. Ok I have only seen the first three videos but they were all laughable arguments, like, comparing the F1 engines and the LM descent rocket, etc.
About the Asahi article bakaKanadajin posted at the beginning, I don't buy the part where the author claims the Japanese lunar surveillance craft (Kaguya/SELENE) attempted to get images of the lunar landers. The HDTV camera on board SELENE is nothing more than a civil-grade HD camera, to be used from the lunar orbit, and as a result it only has the resolution of 100m or so. It did however find the mark on the ground left by the LM ascent rocket, using a different imaging equipment.
The LRO mission is supposed to capture higher resolution images in the coming weeks (I think?), so we'll see.
I think, as Emoni said, critical, inquisitive mind is always good, as long as they are logically sound. But the arguments put forward in the video ChrisGR posted are quite childish and they keep moving the goalpost. Ok I have only seen the first three videos but they were all laughable arguments, like, comparing the F1 engines and the LM descent rocket, etc.
About the Asahi article bakaKanadajin posted at the beginning, I don't buy the part where the author claims the Japanese lunar surveillance craft (Kaguya/SELENE) attempted to get images of the lunar landers. The HDTV camera on board SELENE is nothing more than a civil-grade HD camera, to be used from the lunar orbit, and as a result it only has the resolution of 100m or so. It did however find the mark on the ground left by the LM ascent rocket, using a different imaging equipment.
The LRO mission is supposed to capture higher resolution images in the coming weeks (I think?), so we'll see.
ChrisGR
Explore the world!
- 12 Jul 2009
- 57
- 0
Half-n-Half
先輩
- 17 Jul 2007
- 920
- 70
Yeah and mythbusters videos are pretty mature i think.
Nobody here, at least I think, is basing their entire arguments off of the Mythbusters.
ChrisGR
Explore the world!
- 12 Jul 2009
- 57
- 0
So am i with that vid.
- 19 May 2007
- 1,716
- 113
I own a business here in Japan, and I almost forgot... I am also a physics major... (like it matters anyway, rolleyes)
And I don't care if you are in the best university sections in the world, your lack of insight on this matter will always make me question you, especially when you have presented no proof to the contray on man landing on the moon in 1969. All you have done is said , "oh that is crap." and "if you believe that you must believe in batman.." , I am sorry that you come across uneducated, but you don't need big "scientific words" to sound smart or stupid for that matter....
I believe many people have provided links to counter your theory, where is yours?
So b/c you want another link, here is one for you, http://www.littlegoldenguy.com/posters/1994/1994_Forrest_Gump.jpg
ChrisGR
Explore the world!
- 12 Jul 2009
- 57
- 0
you re funny! do all the evil incarnates that are ready to take the world by gaining levels on warcraft are funny like you?
Haruspex
先輩
- 30 Aug 2007
- 2,324
- 96
I'm not sure about that, but I'm pretty convinced that sentences start with capital letters and so do names and titles. A decent argument, and even an insult begins with literacy.
- 19 May 2007
- 1,716
- 113
I thought so, a big bag of hot air...
ChrisGR
Explore the world!
- 12 Jul 2009
- 57
- 0
If i was the one believing that your country went to the moon in 1969, then i would be the smart one,for you right?
think only a little and you will see that everything is a matter of perspective of the truth.
if you can think at least a little...
but the big hot bags of air are the first to resort to insults when their arguments are done.
- 19 May 2007
- 1,716
- 113
Hmmmm..... Who said it was my Country that went to the moon? You assume too much. And people who take an opinion as an insult are the ones who usually are in a corner they can't get out of. I have answered your queries, so where is your response? I still see nothing in the way of you showing that people did not go to the moon? Oh , thats right , you are in electrical engeeniring and computer techology so we must devour everything you say as gospel...
ChrisGR
Explore the world!
- 12 Jul 2009
- 57
- 0
Insulting is not an opinion, its an attack, and attacking personally means you are the one who is cornered and not me
if you look back i didnt insult anyone without being insulted first because
thats the easy solution for people like you. i wont continue this series of no reason talking with you.
- 19 May 2007
- 1,716
- 113
Blah, Blah ,Blah... You obviously have no conclusive evidence to state your claim, so I will just assume you are engaging in frivolous tactics to steer away from the fact that your claims are baseless and unfounded.
ChrisGR
Explore the world!
- 12 Jul 2009
- 57
- 0
And link urls on net are very reliable facts. Show me a Nasa id or that you are one of the best astro-physicists in the world
and THAT'S facts.
if we play the game of the urls, this discussion will never end
cuz we know how nice the internet "links" are.
and THAT'S facts.
if we play the game of the urls, this discussion will never end
cuz we know how nice the internet "links" are.
- 19 May 2007
- 1,716
- 113
Internet URL's, how about NASA's footage? That is all that is needed. If you want to entertain the idea that man did not walk on the moon in 1969, you are going to have to provide some sort of evidence, b/c so far the evidence is there that we did. That my friend is the reality of disproving something, the buck falls on you.
ChrisGR
Explore the world!
- 12 Jul 2009
- 57
- 0
If you mean the photos shown in the first thread that shows an arrow and a dot on the surface of moon
then ask yourself, we have those high technology telescopes that can see even other galaxies and
we cant get a clear view of the moon's surface? and by the way, photoshop. the buck is off.
Haruspex
先輩
- 30 Aug 2007
- 2,324
- 96
To tell you the truth, physics is by far closer to astrophysics than engineering. I mean, for **** sake, its physics in a realm where slightly different rules are thought to apply.
Additionally, you imply that we cannot get out of this stalemate because all we are doing is exchanging links, links to which the opposing party does not attribute much importance or credibility. Yet, you have the conceit to argue that nevertheless we are the ignorant ones for not accepting your views expressed through the sources you have cited. I fail to see the logic behind this. If 'academia' taught me anything, it was that a stalemate is a stalemate, not the victory of whoever has the louder voice.
Also, FrustratedDave never claimed that he is a NASA astrophysicist, therefore, as proof of your infantile ways you demand evidence for that in favour of which claims have never been made. Besides, come on, how much credibility and persuasiveness does a person enjoy who makes a Warcraft related ad hominem attack in a thread dealing chiefly with astrophysics, conspiracies and suchlike?
- 19 May 2007
- 1,716
- 113
No, I am talking about the original footage of the moon landing. I am interested as to what you think in that footage is actually a fabrication?
Half-n-Half
先輩
- 17 Jul 2007
- 920
- 70
First off, the LRO is equipped with cameras, not a "high technology telescope." Secondly, if you know anything about telescopes astronomers use to study the universe you'll realize they are very big. The mirrors on the telescopes are meters in diameter. Many of the pictures you see of distant galaxies are from the Hubble Space Telescope who's mirror is 2.4 meters in diameter. The main reason why we can see other galaxies is because they are REALLY BIG. Our own Milky Way is 100,000 light years in diameter.
What do you mean by "clear view"? This is a pretty clear view to me: NASA - Cracked Crater
And no, the buck is not off. OK, so you think they could have photoshopped the picture. Care to present any evidence for this? If not, you might as well say a demon put those landers there for the picture so we would think we landed on the moon.
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
- 4 Feb 2005
- 4,644
- 203
Somehow I knew you would say that. Typical behaviour of someone whose flimsy assertions have been destroyed, because that is all you have, assertions.
I've yet to see you put up any evidence that the landing are a hoax because all you are doing at the moment is trolling this thread.
