Chinahand Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 Did you even read the full link? Crew care packages? But your mindset is convinced there is a conspiracy and will always attempt to find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 There's an informative article concerning vulnerable narcissist's in the Daily Mail, and how conspiracy theories are attractive to such people. Abstract of the original research highlighted by the DM Article. Preprint of article here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Message of the article, question the official line = "Conspiracy Theorist" = Possible Narcissistic personalty disorder = Ridicule. I think the term "Conspiracy Theory" actually came from one of the American alphabet agencies, perhaps "FBI", to discredit people questioning the JFK shooting, I don't think it was used any earlier, clever tactics once again that the people fell for I wonder who funded these scientific studies connecting these conditions with non believers of the "Moon Landings" etc.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 Message of the article, question the official line = "Conspiracy Theorist" = Possible Narcissistic personalty disorder = Ridicule. ... I wonder who funded these scientific studies connecting these conditions with non believers of the "Moon Landings" etc.. Did you even read the article? Preparation of this article was supported by the funds of the Polish National Science Centre, awarded with the decision number DEC-2011/01/B/HS6/04637. All they did was get a couple of hundred Americans who work via Amazon's Mechanical Turk to answer a series of questionnaires. The Conspiracy one is similar to this one. They then did some statistics on the results. You may find it ridiculing that there are strong correlations between how people answer the questionnaires, but the results are simply factual findings. Or do you, as ever, think it is all faked or manipulated and a random collection of people weren't asked to fill in a series of surveys rather the Men-in-Black have hacked the results? There's a statistical pattern here, I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I think you can get any result you like with the right selection of questions, no men in black needed. so asking a couple of hundred Americans some carefully selected questions is good science is it? Did you watch the animated video in one of the links, its quite obvious as to what it is designed to do, ridicule and put down a certain type of person. There is a growing number of people becoming "conspiracy theorists", this is damage control, I don't see many of these people taking selfies or wearing designer cloths, perhaps some are not the most social of people but I wouldn't call them Narcissistic, If you want to see just over a minute of a room filled with Narcissists then look here. I wonder how many GENUINE "Conspiracy theorists" are in the crowd. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDvarbpIuEk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 These buffoons who do not believe we went to the moon are incredible. There is just so much evidence that the Apollo flights were real that it is ludicrous to contend otherwise. I reckon the first conspiracy theorists didn't actually subscribe to their theories but were simply seeing how much nonsense they could get foolish people to believe. Then it snowballed as things do, particularly on the internet. If you put a diametrically opposing view to government/authority/established wisdom, there are people who fervently want that to be true and will argue that it is true however outlandish the premise. No matter what counter argument is put to them they will not accept the facts. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jun/21/mcdonald-observatory-space-laser-funding http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/apollo.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 I think you can get any result you like with the right selection of questions, no men in black needed. so asking a couple of hundred Americans some carefully selected questions is good science is it? You don't get it do you. What you do is ask a random group of people to answer 2 sets of questionnaires - about their self esteem and about their narcissism. With this information you can then predict, ie in advance, with reasonable accuracy how they will perform on a third conspiracy questionnaire. People with certain levels of self esteem and certain levels of narcissism WON'T be conspiracists, different people with different results WILL be. How they perform on the first two tests allows a useful estimate to be made on how they will perform on the third. It is the predictive ability which makes it scientifically relevant. The questions are carefully selected, but the point is they allow you to distinguish between different types of people. The questions sort a random group of American into sub-groups who report objectively different views on conspiracies, in advance - you don't need to know their views on the moon-landing, or JFK, all you need to know is there sense of self-esteem and how narcissistic they are. You can dismiss this all you like, and as ever these are statistical results based on populations - individual results will vary - but it has reasonable predictive power. And useful prediction is almost the definition of what science is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Woolley, online newspaper articles stating something that has no empirical substance to back it up is not evidence, the true touchable hard empirical evidence was conveniently lost years ago, in the form of thousands of boxes of recordings, plans and data. Now call me suspicious but this does not add up, all we have is petrified wood moon rocks and TV footage. Think about how Apollo 11 managed to bring back 22KG of moon rocks in that little capsule including the Astronauts. Oh and where are they now, Missing! As discussed in the FE thread, there is no way they would get a laser through the atmosphere twice + 1/2 million miles, especially 40 years ago, lasers now let alone 40 years ago could never do it. over a few of miles the beam goes from about 1" to 12 foot, totally distorted, that is with lasers today, I think 40 years ago they were much worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 Gerry, that is bull shit. Some moon samples have been lost - but only a tiny fraction of them - the rest are still been used and tested - even today - in Universities and research labs the world over. Some plans have been lost or destroyed - you make a huge issue of this, but again it is NOT all the plans, but only a few of them and there are explanations for this - floods, admin errors, and yes deliberate policy. Here's an interesting parallel - I worked in the building trade for a while - if you want to know about a really major project you tend to only find records etc if it goes wrong. If the stadium or building goes to plan the proof of it is physically there - you can go and see it. You only get minuted meetings kept in triplicate when things are going to rat-shit. NASA is different - they knew there was something historic going on and they had historians there to document and record it. Things still went wrong, and some documents weren't kept, either by accident or design - a middle-manager thinks it isn't important enough and dumps it before the historian can stop them. You ignore the thousands upon thousands of documents and scientific results that do exist, and fixate on a tiny percentage which don't. Rockets are launched into space basically monthly - but because some tapes of the moon-landings 45 years ago were lost it makes it all a conspiracy. Goodness me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 As discussed in the FE thread, there is no way they would get a laser through the atmosphere twice + 1/2 million miles, especially 40 years ago, lasers now let alone 40 years ago could never do it. over a few of miles the beam goes from about 1" to 12 foot, totally distorted, that is with lasers today, I think 40 years ago they were much worse.That is categorically untrue - all it shows is your ignorance. Go read here for starters. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Don't tell us its all lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 im not sure if you are aware or not but it was quite a big event in its time chinahand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 hardly compares to you hanging a few dado rails but ground breaking none the less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 im not sure if you are aware or not but it was quite a big event in its time chinahandGerry doesn't believe you, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 This paper has a good summary of the challenges of the Lunar Ranging Experiment on page 6: 1. The laser beam emerges from a launch telescope, usually filling the aperture. 2. A 100 mJ pulse contains about 3x10^17 photons. 3. A 100 ps pulse width translates into a few-cm thick light pulse. 4. Atmospheric turbulence quickly imposes arcsecond-scale divergence. 5. One arcsecond translates to 1.8 km at the Moon. 6. Roughly 1 in 25 million launch photons will strike the small reflector. 7. Difraction from individual corner cubes spreads the return beam. 8. Apollo corner cubes effectively impart 7.5 arcseconds of divergence. 9. The return beam footprint on Earth is approximately 15 km across. 10. A 1 m aperture on Earth will collect 1 in 2x10^8 of the returned photons. 11. Divergence is therefore responsible for a loss factor around 10^16. 12. Round-trip travel time ranges from 2.33 to 2.71 seconds. 1 3. At 20 pulses per second, ~50 are in flight at a time. But Gerry just knows this is lies all lies - even though he knows nothing about the physics or the engineering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 fair one. i ninety percent think it happened but the doubt revolves around americus desperation to beat the russians to the moon for bragging rights, hence the motive for maybe cheating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.