Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 60

Thread: Mythbusters

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    200

    Mythbusters

    Has anyone seen the Mythbusters episode debunking the stupid claims of the HB's?Also,What astronauts does Bill [Kaysing] claim to have testimony from????
    Last edited by PetersCreek; 2010-Jun-01 at 06:40 AM. Reason: Name corrected. Attack the arguments, not the man.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    200
    If it is Brian O leary,then he should know that O Leary actually recanted that theory and has stated that he believes that the landings were real.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northern Utah
    Posts
    6,213
    Our own JayUtah was a technical adviser on the Mythbusters Moon hoax episode. He also has a site that covers nearly all of the common hoax statements, including many of the statements made by people like Kaysing. It can be found at www.clavius.org.
    I'm Not Evil.
    An evil person would do the things that pop into my head.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    200
    THanx alot Tog

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    156

    Myth Busters is so not good!!!!!

    I have seen these episodes and they are not good. Look for yourself. Their debunking can be easily picked apart. Again, I am new here, very much a main streamer in a general sense but very open minded and let me see the facts type person. I am a critical thinker to some significant degree, at least I think I am. A major interest of mine actually is how main streamers get into trouble by not honestly engaging the hoaxers and answering their questions in a straight-forward way. Since I am new, my threads are not yet posted. I am no expert on anything, but have a solid general science background. I hope this will be fun for me. DoctorTea

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,675
    This may come across as a bit snarky, but... The mainstream of the Landing Denier beliefs are not very good, and they are indeed easily picked apart. There is little point in doing careful science to refute the claim that shadows from a single source must always lie parallel within a picture frame, when anyone can either open a magazine or take a camera outside and refute that in an instant.

    Also, you are reversing the onus here. The claims by the Landing Deniers fall roughly into two categories; one being "There is no way so-and-so could happen, therefore, the missions are a fake," and the other being, "Here is how I think they faked so-and-so, therefore, it is possible the missions were faked."

    In re the former, all that is necessary is to show one way in which so-and-so COULD happen. Aka shadows that appear to diverge, or converge, said to be impossible under the lighting conditions of the Moon, easily show to be possible by replicating said conditions.

    The latter case is more complex. Although you can often (as Mythbusters did) refute the specific method suggested by the Landing Denier (for instance, that multiple light sources were used), you can not refute ALL possible methods to fake the results. There will always be a method that no-one has thought of yet.

    Does one then conclude it is impossible to know anything? No. One concludes that there is always room for new evidence, but until convincing evidence arrives, the preponderance of evidence favors the existing conclusion.


    Lastly, and at the real risk of attracting moderator ire, besides studying Apollo (and related subjects) for years, we've also been arguing with Landing Deniers for years. Perhaps that makes us overly quick to judge. From our experience the Landing Deniers have certain set patterns, and they very rarely surprise us by deviating from them. I will name no names, but a recent poster came on in such a set and familiar manner the older of us experienced a strong sense of having argued with that very person before.

    At some point, you get tired of ever-extending the hand of cordiality, calmly re-stating questions, writing out once again basic explanations, only to find that the latest brick wall is no more dent-able than the hundred that came before. We recognize, you see, those rare posters who come to learn instead of to posture, and if you stick around long enough for one of those rare birds to wander in you will see a much different behavior from the oldsters here.

    I hope I haven't said, or assumed, too much.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by DoctorTea View Post
    Their debunking can be easily picked apart.
    Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the rules of this board, particularly the special rules pertaining to the "proving ground" section of the board. Re. those rules...you have made the claim that the mythbusters debunking of the Moon hoaxers "can be easily picked apart". The challenge for you is to put your money where your mouth is (so to speak) and go ahead and "pick apart" the MB's debunking.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,541
    Quote Originally Posted by DoctorTea View Post
    I have seen these episodes and they are not good. Look for yourself. Their debunking can be easily picked apart.
    Are you talking about the episode on moon hoax claims, or episodes on other subjects? If other episodes, it's off topic, but I watched their show on the moon hoax claims and thought they did a good job. If you're just arguing about their presentation style and not the arguments, keep in mind that they don't want to bore their audience. Anyway, if you do have concerns about their arguments, please present them.

    A major interest of mine actually is how main streamers get into trouble by not honestly engaging the hoaxers and answering their questions in a straight-forward way.
    If you review the threads here, you'll find many honest answers to questions. Some annoyance too, but that typically only becomes a big issue when a hoaxer ignores answers, changes subjects, and doesn't answer questions put to them.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    156
    Allow me to explain what I saw on the Mythbusters program. There was an episode that involved The Mythbusters showing/demonstrating that the sun's light could have reflected off the lunar surface well enough/adequately such that a good still photograph could be taken of Aldrin as he descended the ladder. The Mythbuster guys went through all of this rigmarole to show how employing material with the same reflectivity as the lunar surface, something like 7%, one should/could/would photograph this little model of Aldrin well. That is, the little Aldrin model would indeed be adequately illuminated such that the still photo, Mythbuster model photo could roughly resemble that photo Armstrong actually took of Aldrin as he descended the ladder. I do not know about this stuff in detail but I presume the claim by the other side/hoaxers is that the TV picture taken simultaneously with the Armstrong photograph of Aldrin is dark and the photograph itself is light and so because the lighting is not in a sense commensurate, the whole thing is faked and must be phony. Correct me if i am wrong PLEASE!, but that is what I understood the Mythbuster guys to say. My point is that as far as I could/can tell, the Mythbuster guys, in order to do this correctly, would actually need to take into account the brightness of the incident light(sun's intensity, direction, angle) and other parameters which I did not see them carefully do. Was the light they used similar to sunlight in quality. Maybe it was, but i did not pick that up watching. Perhaps i missed a point there. Since we are chatting about it, i will watch again. But my take was, "This is supposed to be science???" It looked to me like hokey amateur guys. I am sorry, but that is what I thought. It was silly, anything but meticulous. Bad science. Could not even really call it that, call it science. So what if they got the reflectivity right? What about the incident light and the little model of Aldrin is not the same as photographing a full sized astronaut. I won't go into details here about that, the difference between a little Aldrin model and Aldrin himself in a spacesuit. I honestly could not care less about the picture/photo stuff debate. I do not see persuasive evidence from either side with regard to the photos, though in a broader sense, from my general perspective, I view the photos as authentic, but not because the photos in and of themselves are convincing. By that i mean, if someone showed me just the pictures, I would NOT have good reason to be sure the landings took place. The pictures support the landings, but there are not totally unreasonable objections that merit discussion. On the other hand, I do see very persuasive evidence for the landings based on the rocks, the uniqueness of the rocks and for that reason and a few others, but for me, that is the main one, the rocks, I am a person who views the landings as credible/believable. If some one showed me just the rocks and the scientific papers written with regard to them, on that alone, I would and do agree with most people that look at this some in a bit of detail, that the landings in fact occurred. The Mythbuster guys actually seem to work against their intentions with a bad effort. At least that is my take. DoctorTea

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,347
    DoctorTea can I offer you a bit of advice, paragraphs are your friends, you should make use of them. The great walls of text you keep throwing up are nearly unreadable as they are, breaking them up will make them much more readable. I suggest making use of the preview function available in the advanced version of the posting interface (accessed through the "Go Advanced" button).

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Birmingham AL
    Posts
    1,184
    Dr Tea: The "persuasive evidence" is in the records of the flights and the moon rocks, among others....Not to mention the telemetry that was monitored by our "friends" in the Soviet Union, and other places that were not connected with NASA..I was alive and in the US Army when these flights took place, and I cannot understand the current lack of acceptance by younger people, it seems almost that they have lost the ability to discern reality through rational thought....I hear a lot of "On the one hand this, and on the other hand that..." which tells me that someone is not doing their own thinking...Trying to be impartial by this syllogism is not substitute for a careful investigation and the application of real rational thought....IMHO..

    Dale

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,675
    Quote Originally Posted by DoctorTea View Post
    Allow me to explain what I saw on the Mythbusters program. There was an episode that involved The Mythbusters showing/demonstrating that the sun's light could have reflected off the lunar surface well enough/adequately such that a good still photograph could be taken of Aldrin as he descended the ladder. The Mythbuster guys went through all of this rigmarole to show how employing material with the same reflectivity as the lunar surface, something like 7%, one should/could/would photograph this little model of Aldrin well. That is, the little Aldrin model would indeed be adequately illuminated such that the still photo, Mythbuster model photo could roughly resemble that photo Armstrong actually took of Aldrin as he descended the ladder. I do not know about this stuff in detail but I presume the claim by the other side/hoaxers is that the TV picture taken simultaneously with the Armstrong photograph of Aldrin is dark and the photograph itself is light and so because the lighting is not in a sense commensurate, the whole thing is faked and must be phony.
    No. And that illustrates what I said about familiarity with the Landing Deniers and their usual arguments.

    The usual argument is that the illumination observed in the photograph is impossible under the lighting conditions of the Moon, and could only have been achieved with a second (and presumed artificial) source. The conclusion drawn is that the photograph was staged, and was lit with a full panoply of studio lighting fixtures.

    The Mythbusters easily show that the original assumption this conclusion is drawn from is, in fact, incorrect. Reflected light -- what we call inter-object illumination -- is quite sufficient.

    As an aside, I once had the opportunity to light Walter Koenig doing a reading. ALL the light that fell on his face was reflected off the script on the podium, and yet it filled in his face very well against the strong toplight he and the videographer had requested.

    In any case, the Mythbusters were not tasked to show the photograph could be exactly duplicated. They were tasked to show IT WASN'T IMPOSSIBLE to duplicate it without adding extra (studio) lights.


    Quote Originally Posted by DoctorTea View Post
    Correct me if i am wrong PLEASE!, but that is what I understood the Mythbuster guys to say. My point is that as far as I could/can tell, the Mythbuster guys, in order to do this correctly, would actually need to take into account the brightness of the incident light(sun's intensity, direction, angle) and other parameters which I did not see them carefully do. Was the light they used similar to sunlight in quality. Maybe it was, but i did not pick that up watching. Perhaps i missed a point there. Since we are chatting about it, i will watch again. But my take was, "This is supposed to be science???" It looked to me like hokey amateur guys. I am sorry, but that is what I thought. It was silly, anything but meticulous. Bad science. Could not even really call it that, call it science. So what if they got the reflectivity right? What about the incident light and the little model of Aldrin is not the same as photographing a full sized astronaut. I won't go into details here about that, the difference between a little Aldrin model and Aldrin himself in a spacesuit. I honestly could not care less about the picture/photo stuff debate. I do not see persuasive evidence from either side with regard to the photos, though in a broader sense, from my general perspective, I view the photos as authentic, but not because the photos in and of themselves are convincing. By that i mean, if someone showed me just the pictures, I would NOT have good reason to be sure the landings took place. The pictures support the landings, but there are not totally unreasonable objections that merit discussion. On the other hand, I do see very persuasive evidence for the landings based on the rocks, the uniqueness of the rocks and for that reason and a few others, but for me, that is the main one, the rocks, I am a person who views the landings as credible/believable. If some one showed me just the rocks and the scientific papers written with regard to them, on that alone, I would and do agree with most people that look at this some in a bit of detail, that the landings in fact occurred. The Mythbuster guys actually seem to work against their intentions with a bad effort. At least that is my take. DoctorTea
    Do a literature search.

    Here: this came up in about twenty seconds. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...a&searchtype=a

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    9
    I watched the MythBusters prove, without a doubt, the affect a vacuum has on a swinging flag. Great episode. For those who didn't see it:

    The flag was put into a vacuum chamber and attached to a mechanical device that would allow someone outside the chamber to twist the flag poll. They used the same design as used on the Apollo moon landings so the flag would look like it's blowing in a strong wind. Before the air was removed, they torqued the flag poll. The affect was a curving in the fabric cause by air resistance as the flag tried to swing, and a few back and forth swings before air resistance stopped all motion.

    Next, they removed the air and torqued the flag poll again. This time, there was much less curve in the fabric since there was no resistance, and the flag swung back and forth like a pendulum for a much longer time that when air was in the chamber. They then showed a side-by-side comparison of the effects with and without a vacuum.

    The point they were making was that, even though the Apollo 15 "waving flag" looked like it was caused by air brushing the flag from the passing astronaut, the way the flag swung indicated a vacuum. Given this, the evidence supports a vacuum, which means it was not moving air causes by the astronautic running by the flag.

    The above is a great example of how all the available evidence needs to be analyzed, not just parts of it.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    209
    If I recall correctly. The Hoax argument was that the astronaut should be all black because there is no atmosphere on the moon to bounce light around and light up someone who is in a shadow (or the shadowy side of the person can not be lit up on the moon).

    The mythbusters showed that there was not need for an atmosphere to do the job of scatering the light to bounce off the astronaut and into the camera because the lunar surface is really reflective itself.

    So they made a mock up in miniature of the same scene. And showed that it is possible to light up the astronaught using light bounced off the simulated surface enough to light up the astronaut in a shadow.

    As I recall that is what they did.

    I woud have liked for them to do a full size mockup in a full sized vacuum chamber to eleminate the atmosphere issue.

    But thats what I would like for them to do. Im sure that would cost way to much to set up. And im sure they blew a lot of the budget on the low gravity simulating plane rides.

    Either way I thought they proved thier point that it is possible to light up someone in a shadow using only the reflectivity of the lunar surface.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    9
    I like the visual shown on the website blow. Two pictures of the same model. Both have the same light source from the same angle. The difference is that one has a more reflective surface the model is sitting on. It's a simple test, but visually compelling!

    http://iangoddard.com/moon01.htm

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1
    Hello DoctorTea,

    I haven't seen the particular epislode in question, so I can't comment directly. I have seen some really bad stuff on Mythbusters, though. What can we say? It's a television show, they have to appeal to the audience. This may involve a lot of sloppiness and cutting corners; there's a reason that show is on, instead of videotapes of science lectures from the local university.

    I am an even newer member than you, but I have been hiding in the shadows for quite a long time, so I have seen the lay of the land here. You have gotten some good responses, that address the comments you made directly (although as you can see, not everyone agrees with you) - this is fairly common. Less desirable but also common is the threat to have you carted off to against-the-mainstream jail, despite the fact that you're not making any non-mainstream claim (unless we count pop science shows among the scientific mainstream). It gets worse if you move outside the core areas of the board; I am frequently astonished at what a lot of the board members seem to think the mainstream is in my field of expertise. One of the reasons I have stayed in the shadows. (Oh crap, now they can see me )

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,896
    Quote Originally Posted by DoctorTea View Post
    I do not know about this stuff in detail but I presume the claim by the other side/hoaxers is that the TV picture taken simultaneously with the Armstrong photograph of Aldrin is dark and the photograph itself is light and so because the lighting is not in a sense commensurate, the whole thing is faked and must be phony. Correct me if i am wrong PLEASE!, but that is what I understood the Mythbuster guys to say.
    As others have pointed out, more along the lines that Aldrin's spacesuit is suspiciously bright in the Lunar Module's shadow. This is taken to be a specific example of asking why all sorts of things show up in what they believe should be extremely dark shadows. For example, the US flag and the words "UNITED STATES" on the shaded side of the LM's Descent Stage.

    My point is that as far as I could/can tell, the Mythbuster guys, in order to do this correctly, would actually need to take into account the brightness of the incident light(sun's intensity, direction, angle) and other parameters which I did not see them carefully do. Was the light they used similar to sunlight in quality. Maybe it was, but i did not pick that up watching. Perhaps i missed a point there.
    I don't think they said anything on the show about the points you've raised. They're valid points, but the presenters point out on their show that they don't explain every parameter they take into account when doing their experiments, as it would take too long. This is why they occasionally revisit some of their myths, to show them taking care of points raised by fans.

    Since we are chatting about it, i will watch again. But my take was, "This is supposed to be science???" It looked to me like hokey amateur guys. I am sorry, but that is what I thought. It was silly, anything but meticulous. Bad science. Could not even really call it that, call it science.
    To be fair, they're providing entertainment. They're not doing an experiment in a lab with the intent of getting the results published in Nature. I've heard people groan about the approaches they've taken in some of their other shows, in terms of not following correct experimental procedure. For me, the most important thing about Mythbusters is teaching people to do experiments to test things, rather than sitting back in a chair and announcing that they know this or that.

    One thing that consistently occurs with Apollo Hoax Believers is their unwillingness or inability to demonstrate the hoaxes they claim to uncover. They're willing to alter Apollo photos to show how they think they should appear, but they're not willing to recreate the settings to produce the effects directly. For example, with the Aldrin-ladder photo, they'll take the photo and calculate where the secondary light is, but they won't then go and recreate the photo.

    However, having said that, I think the experiments they conducted on the Apollo Hoax show were quite credible. In terms of the Aldrin-ladder photo test, the main point was to show that another astronaut in a bright spacesuit (Armstrong) standing in the Sun was sufficiently reflective to light up Aldrin, even though he was in the shade.

    I honestly could not care less about the picture/photo stuff debate.
    If you're interested in learning more about hoax belief, it's worth caring a little bit, as it's an education in the way hoax believers think.

    I do not see persuasive evidence from either side with regard to the photos, though in a broader sense, from my general perspective, I view the photos as authentic, but not because the photos in and of themselves are convincing. By that i mean, if someone showed me just the pictures, I would NOT have good reason to be sure the landings took place.
    That's fair enough.

    The pictures support the landings, but there are not totally unreasonable objections that merit discussion.
    I'd be curious to know what you think these objections are.

    On the other hand, I do see very persuasive evidence for the landings based on the rocks, the uniqueness of the rocks and for that reason and a few others, but for me, that is the main one, the rocks, I am a person who views the landings as credible/believable. If some one showed me just the rocks and the scientific papers written with regard to them, on that alone, I would and do agree with most people that look at this some in a bit of detail, that the landings in fact occurred.
    It's good that you point to the rock business, as most people who discuss the hoax from the side of Apollo also take that view. But the key thing about accepting the reality of Apollo is a concept that arch-skeptic Michael Shermer calls the consilience of evidence - many streams of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion. Whether you look at the rocks, the testimony of the people who worked at Mission Control or the ground stations, the engineering information, the conversations between the crews and Mission Control, the videos, the fact that the Soviets had spies in NASA, the testimony of the astronauts, or the photos, they all suggest (to me at least) that Apollo was real. No Apollo evidence I've seen has ever tempted me to doubt the reality of Apollo.

    The Mythbuster guys actually seem to work against their intentions with a bad effort. At least that is my take. DoctorTea
    Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. I thought the show was quite good, given the limits of time and budget.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,068
    As it happens, my membership on their message board coincided with the first vague discussion that they might do a Moon hoax episode. (This would have been more than five years ago.) I was part of the discussion at the time, and one of the problems was something they could do for cheap, and especially things that ordinary people might be able to duplicate themselves. They've gotten less fussy about that latter requirement, obviously, but the interesting thing about the lighting one is that you can duplicate it yourself. You probably don't have access to regolith simulant or a vacuum chamber or the Vomit Comet, but testing lighting effects isn't that complicated and doesn't require much in special equipment.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    156
    This is fun going back and forth with you guys. I am glad somebody said the points were sort of valid. i am not familiar with the details of claims by hoaxers. it just seemed the Mythbuster science was limited. They did not reproduce the conditions of the photo to my satisfaction. i should have said that and left it alone. I guess if i pursue this with you all, i'll learn to be more brief. DoctorTea

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    156
    Sorry, i cannot get into the hoax stuff like you guys. I am not going to do a search to see what these hoax guys think. I am too busy as it is. But thanks for the encouragement. this site is fun and you guys are smart and more importantly, thoughtful critical thinkers.

    DoctorTea

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by DoctorTea View Post
    Sorry, i cannot get into the hoax stuff like you guys. I am not going to do a search to see what these hoax guys think.

    DoctorTea
    Which makes me wonder why you said this earlier:

    a major interest of mine actually is how main streamers get into trouble by not honestly engaging the hoaxers and answering their questions in a straight-forward way.
    If you don't know a lot about the hoaxers arguments and attitudes how could you make such a statement about how those choose to engage them? The reality is that HB's rarely offer up a considered well researched view, and are incredibly resistant to anything that contradicts their ill founded theories, heck if you want to look at just one example try looking up Jarrah White and his definition of 'Polar Orbit'.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    156
    I know I have been way way way too verbose and that has diluted my point(s). The point I tried to make about the main streamers/main stream thinking I believe MAY be a valid one on some important levels. I made this point in a different post/thread so I apologize for mentioning it here and should not have mentioned it in this particular Mythbuster thread. I am learning, trying my best. I apologize, and If I stick around, hopefully I will learn and be able to contribute, help people learn. But I do have a real job and this is work!, perhaps too much for a casual guy like me. At any rate, I am here for now and I realize I need to really try and stay on topic. But it is not easy for me. The subjects/topics mix, spin, swirl, flow. See my other posts, the threads I started today/yesterday. I wrote in this other thread about how some professional/academic astronomers with whom I have been communicating, view some of the hoaxer topics/issues as legitimate, albeit indirectly so. That said, in a broader sense, I do not know the specifics even in the sketchiest of outlines of even .00000001% of the hoax argument(s). But so what! Do I need to go to moon hoax class before I can participate here???? I thought this would be a place for me to learn a little, on site. Give me a break! You might learn something from me. I am an expert in the physiology of human thermoreglation. It has relevance here. I would think you might want some input from me instead of interrogate and torture every word I say. You guys are so so so funny. WAY TO SERIOUS! I MEAN THAT RELAX!!!! I accidentally stumbled upon ONE OR TWO points that only seem to me on some level to be interpreted by others as having implications regarding whether astronauts did or did not land on the moon. One of these had to do with the issue as to whether one can or cannot see stars from the moon's surface. My intention was only to point out that professional/academic astronomers with whom I have been communicating, including an optics specialist based in Cambridge were indeed debating this issue which some viewed as having hoax relevance, but was nonetheless a legitimate topic for discussion. I made my statements based on my experiences communicating with these astronomers. See my other threads for details. What is this a witch hunt??? You guys take this so seriously. It sort of proves my point if I may be so bold. I came here trying to get more of a blue collar taste of this stuff as I had been communicating with academics and it's like this is the most important thing in the universe to some of the people here when I would have thought it might have been the academics who would be more uptight. Get a grip for Pete's sake. (Somebody asked me what "for Pete's sake" means in a previous post. Google it. It's semi-biblical.) I still think this is fun and you guys are great but chill out a bit, my goodness. I am a doctor you know, I'd like to prescribe a round of anxiolytics for all the active members of this crew. The anxiety over this stuff is uncalled for boys. Relax!!! Nobody is going to win any hearts or minds here. Be practical. Try and learn something if you can. Let the attitude go go go go go! No one is trying to game you and if they were/are so what, don't respond. Really, what gives here. FOR PETE'S SAKE RELAX RELAX RELAX!!!!!!

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by DoctorTea View Post
    A wall of text
    Seriously that paragraph is more than one page long. I would like to read it but it is unreadable at the moment.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    156
    fine , no big. DoctorTea

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,809
    Quote Originally Posted by DoctorTea View Post
    I am an expert in the physiology of human thermoreglation.
    I'm not an expert, but I think it's called "thermoregulation."

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    156
    sorry, there are probably hundreds of typos in my posts throughout the evening. i will be as careful as i can be with my spelling, syntax and so forth, but my style , at least so far far has been overly verbose. what can i say. i read a few of my posts and there were/are numerous misspellings/typos. no big for me if not for you. Best, DoctorTea.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by DoctorTea View Post
    ...I do not know the specifics even in the sketchiest of outlines of even .00000001% of the hoax argument(s). But so what!
    Yeah...it's not like you need a certain "familiarity" with hoaxer "arguments" before you can criticize a debunking of those same arguments...

    Sheesh....

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,459
    Quote Originally Posted by DoctorTea View Post
    Relax!!! Nobody is going to win any hearts or minds here. Be practical. Try and learn something if you can. Let the attitude go go go go go! No one is trying to game you and if they were/are so what, don't respond. Really, what gives here. FOR PETE'S SAKE RELAX RELAX RELAX!!!!!!
    DoctorTea,

    You need to relax too. Stop criticizing other members for their posting style or how seriously they may take a topic. And stop with the metadiscussion of how we debate hoax believers. As I already told you, such discussion belongs in Feedback. This thread is for discussing the Mythbusters' episode, and that's it.

    And please, paragraph breaks are your friend.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  29. #29
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    156
    I admit, I am out of this league in a sense. Many here know infinitely more about the Apollo program generally and the hoax side of the story than do I. But does one have to commit to full time study of this to participate? By this logic, no one should weigh in unless they have some massive degree of baseline familiarity with hoax science? Is that an oxymoron? Such considerations of gaining baseline familiarity may be valid up to a point, but I believe that one does not need to be so very well versed in this stuff to say, at the very least, this is what I think. No more, no less, simply this is what I think and why. This seems utterly reasonable to me provided the individual be prepared to hear the reason(s) as to why he or she may be wrong, or on the other hand, be prepared to be encouraged and take action as a contributor, even a leader, for that matter, if one proves to be correct about some issue however trivial or important.

    If I say that I don't believe the Mythbusters did a good job because they used a little astronaut model instead of a full sized person to reproduce the conditions of the photo, I may ultimately be proven to be wrong. It may turn out a tiny model Aldrin is very suitable for this "experiment". But should I not give some measured opinion as long as it is reasonably well informed and provided I am prepared to listen to and accept the reason(s) as to why I may be wrong? If the answer is no, then most of us are left, most of the time, with regard to most subjects, to study forever on end, never to ever say what we think about anything. I would submit that such a philosophy with regard to one's approach in terms of life long studies is an absurd approach. Many, if not most, would agree my point about the miniature Aldrin vs a real full sized Aldrin model is not an unreasonable point to make. I am entitled to my opinion provided I make some effort to understand the general approach to the Mythbusters' science here, provided I understand in some general sense what they are trying to accomplish, what the vision of the "experiment is, what its goals are, what it claims to be attempting to falsify and what must obtain for those claims to be in fact falsified. I would submit that the Mythbusters themselves, though they may disagree with the validity of my point(s) about the different Aldrin models, would nevertheless almost certainly see my point(s) as not entirely unreasonable. I will ask them. I will make a strong effort to query the Mythbusters themselves. Let's see what the experimenters think when I ask them about the "objections", my objections to their strategy, the very ones that I have outlined above. If they see my objections as reasonable, even though they may disagree with the substance/facts of those objections, then I would say my point is valid and stands. If they, the real life Mythbusters themselves, see my objections as utterly unreasonable, so lacking in merit, objections of such inconsequential substance, that they never should be raised, let alone addressed, then by all means R.A.F., your point stands and stands well and I should leave the forum. I will see if I can get them to address what I am sure will prove to be another one of my most interesting questions. I will be sure to show you the question before I pose it formally, pass it to them such that you may be given the opportunity to agree or disagree with regard to its being fair. I believe all would agree that such would be a very fair test of our opposing methods of calculus, of logic in such matters.

    What do you say R.A.F.? Shall we not agree on posing such a question to the Mythbusters together? It will be interesting and fun! Why don't we both formulate said question to begin with and then we can go from there? Agreed?

    Disagree with me if one likes about my point regarding the Aldrin tiny miniature model vs a full scale Aldrin model, but regardless of any person's individual opinion, there undoubtedly are individuals on both sides of the hoax debate who would view my pointing this out, my objection to the use of the little miniature Aldrin, as being if not a valid point, then certainly at least a reasonable objection to make irrespective of the merits of the science. I NEED NOT MASTER BOTH APOLLO PROGRAM HISTORY AND HOAX HISTORY TO GIVE A MEANINGFUL CRITIQUE OF THE MYTHBUSTER APPROACH TO FALSIFYING THE CLAIMS OF HOAXERS WITH RESPECT TO THE ALDRIN DISEMBARKATION PHOTO, PROVIDED I GIVE MY REASONS FOR THE SUBSTANCE OF MY CRITIQUE AND PROVIDED THAT I AM PREPARED TO HEAR THE REASONING GIVEN AS TO WHY I AM WRONG AND BE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT REASONING IF IT PROVES TO BE SOUND.

    That said, I do respectfully appreciate your point about studying the position of others in terms of being able to effectively criticize any given topic however narrow or broad R.A.F.. This is a subject, the Apollo program, of astronomical dimension and I must plead guilty as charged with respect to this indictment on those grounds as presented, grounds of my woefully glaring limitations.

    I have been lucky the last day playing around on this web site as I have not had work to do, but indeed, I do have a life with great demands. Are those of us not fully committed to this Apollo project 24/7 to be excluded from the discussion? Do we have nothing meaningful to offer because we are not experts in the world of Apollo? Is it not possible that enthusiastic amateurs might not have something meaningful to add? Let he or she in possession of irrefutable, undeniable, absolute, metaphysical competency cast that first loping 4 billion year old lunar stone.

    I do appreciate your point R.A.F., but I hold with great vigor to my own philosophy, a philosophy in strong tension with and in strong opposition to your views. I would caution you, albeit gingerly, be careful not to completely alienate potentially capable allies.

    I feel if an individual has some interest, he or she should be encouraged to participate, and give an opinion, their own opinion with regard to the issue at hand. This is a very good way to engage in the study of various and sundry basic science topics. People here are smart and for the most part, with one glaring exception, the interactions have been civil. I wish all space history enthusiasts, of whatever ilk, opinion or intrinsic analytic capability, all the best, especially you R.A.F., DoctorTea

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by DoctorTea View Post
    By this logic, no one should weigh in unless they have some massive degree of baseline familiarity with hoax science? Is that an oxymoron? Such considerations of gaining baseline familiarity may be valid up to a point, but I believe that one does not need to be so very well versed in this stuff to say, at the very least, this is what I think. No more, no less, simply this is what I think and why.
    But if what you say contradicts the mainstream view then you will be asked questions and be expected to defend your position here in the CT section of the forum.

    This seems utterly reasonable to me provided the individual be prepared to hear the reason(s) as to why he or she may be wrong, or on the other hand, be prepared to be encouraged and take action as a contributor, even a leader, for that matter, if one proves to be correct about some issue however trivial or important.
    You really haven't read any of the CT threads have you? You don't need massive familiarity but you do need to browse a few of the 'classics' to get a measure of how CT's tend to present their cases, and how they respond when their points are refuted.

    If I say that I don't believe the Mythbusters did a good job because they used a little astronaut model instead of a full sized person to reproduce the conditions of the photo, I may ultimately be proven to be wrong. It may turn out a tiny model Aldrin is very suitable for this "experiment". But should I not give some measured opinion as long as it is reasonably well informed and provided I am prepared to listen to and accept the reason(s) as to why I may be wrong?
    And again you have it backwards, here in the CT section the burden would rest with you to show why this experiment isn't valid, other posters are under no obligation to explain why it works. Not going to respond to the rest of the post because it all seems to rest on this basic misunderstanding of how the CT section of the forum operates.

Similar Threads

  1. sad day for Mythbusters fans..
    By novaderrik in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2019-Sep-05, 09:41 PM
  2. CSI Mythbusters!
    By Iris in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2008-May-04, 01:15 AM
  3. Even zombies like MythBusters!
    By KaiYeves in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2008-Mar-22, 06:35 AM
  4. Mythbusters at TAM 2006
    By The Backroad Astronomer in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2007-Nov-09, 10:17 PM
  5. CNN not like Mythbusters
    By NEOWatcher in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 2007-Jun-28, 12:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •