Attention all moon landing sceptics Page 19

Quote: SlagA @ July 22 2009, 12:00 PM BST

"Those 1000s of people who built the computers, wrote the programmers and designed the systems. Were utterly fooled for days at a time?"

Yes but computer engineers are building a computer. They're not going to get a visit from top brass who'll explain the computer is just part of an elaborate hoax? Why would the grunts need to know everything about a conspiracy to fulfil a small role? Is what a conspiracist would ask.

However, mine was a rhetorical question.

Sorry, I shall stop asking questions.

View original

They weren't grunts they were inspired, brilliant and desperate to work for NASA. NASA was built from scratch I doubt you'd find any grunts there.

If you look at Bletchley Park on the basis of a handful of possible data they could at times work out who the actual German operators were. People don't just follow orders, we're not machines.

Quote: sootyj @ July 22 2009, 12:08 PM BST

People don't just follow orders, we're not machines.

View original

"You're all individuals!"

"Yes we are, we're all individuals!"

"I'm not."

Quote: roscoff @ July 22 2009, 12:00 PM BST

I can't agree with the parallel to religion argument.

View original

Both dispense truth to their adherents, many of whom are incable of understanding the intricacies but the masses accept it anyway, as a matter of faith.

Both are dogmatic belief systems that shun / ridicule dissenters.

Both pay heed to political masters as it suits and hush the many frauds, liars, and errors.

And the clincher: both continue to use latin and wear vestments that lend an air of authority in their field.

The list could continue.

Quote: sootyj @ July 22 2009, 12:08 PM BST

They weren't grunts they were inspired, brilliant and desperate to work for NASA. NASA was built from scratch I doubt you'd find any grunts there.

View original

Don't focus on the word grunt. I'll reword the (rhetorical) question.

Yes but computer engineers are building a computer. They're not going to get a visit from top brass who'll explain the computer is part of an elaborate hoax? Why would a computer BOFFIN need to know everything about a conspiracy to fulfil a small role? Is what a conspiracist would ask.

However, mine was a rhetorical question.

So what?
All sufficently advanced science would be indistinguishable from magic.

Of course science is a faith in the same way religion, theology and philosophy have been. But like all faiths it has conclaves and articles of faith which can be challenged.

You are simply challenging an article of faith in an unconvincing manner.

Where as Tim maybe slowly winning me round on the 9/11 one.

Quote: sootyj @ July 22 2009, 12:19 PM BST

Where as Tim maybe slowly winning me round on the 9/11 one.

View original

Never, Sir!

Quote: SlagA @ July 22 2009, 12:18 PM BST

Don't focus on the word grunt. I'll reword the (rhetorical) question.

Yes but computer engineers are building a computer. They're not going to get a visit from top brass who'll explain the computer is part of an elaborate hoax? Why would a computer BOFFIN need to know everything about a conspiracy to fulfil a small role? Is what a conspiracist would ask.

However, mine was a rhetorical question.

View original

They didn't work in a vacuum. From the rawest crudest data Bletchley could tell who was sending messages, their feelings, hobbies, indiosyncrasies.

How can someone building a computer use that task to deduce a complete conspiracy and then proceed (with that proof) to spill the beans?

Quote: SlagA @ July 22 2009, 12:21 PM BST

Never, Sir!

View original

Not entirely and I still feel when some one says conspiracy look for incompetence. But I'd say he's a possited a solid alternative argument with peruasive evidence and an alternative narrative that's coherent.

Quote: SlagA @ July 22 2009, 12:18 PM BST

Both dispense truth to their adherents, many of whom are incable of understanding the intricacies but the masses accept it anyway, as a matter of faith.

Both are dogmatic belief systems that shun / ridicule dissenters.

Both pay heed to political masters as it suits and hush the many frauds, liars, and errors.

And the clincher: both continue to use latin and wear vestments that lend an air of authority in their field.

The list could continue.

View original

I was only refering to the idea of a mathematical theory being relative to religious theory. I agree with all of the above.

On the science debate, it's noticeable how much God-hating Richard Dawkins increasingly is turning into a massive prick (by way of point mutation, no doubt). Without any irony, he's started to turn atheism into a religion.

The truth is that, even within the scientific community, Dawkins is now regarded by some with disdain. His classical Darwinian theory is being challenged by new evidence (for example from Steve Jones) and he is starting to behave like the reactionary dullards he once criticised. SlagA is correct to say that members of the scientific community can be just as dogmatic and selective in their choice of "beliefs" as theologians. The difference, I suppose, is that eventually Dawkins will either have to put up or shut up in the face of new scientific evidence. His classical Darwinian model, where evolution is governed by environment and his "so-called" selfish gene, is being rigourously challenged. There is now new evidence of occasional rapid evolutionary leaps, and that DNA's job is not solely to self-propagate. (For example, the natural "sideways inheritance" of DNA amongst unicellular organisms goes against the selfish gene theory.)

Quote: sootyj @ July 22 2009, 12:24 PM BST

Not entirely and I still feel when some one says conspiracy look for incompetence. But I'd say he's a possited a solid alternative argument with peruasive evidence and an alternative narrative that's coherent.

View original

Sooty, it's a slippery slope. You'll never be able to get back and reclaim your normality.

Quote: SlagA @ July 22 2009, 12:23 PM BST

How can someone building a computer use that task to deduce a complete conspiracy and then proceed (with that proof) to spill the beans?

View original

I was thinking more of the 1000s who staffed NASA during the moon landings, who would have been the same people who helped establish the systems.

Quote: roscoff @ July 22 2009, 12:24 PM BST

I was only refering to the idea of a mathematical theory being relative to religious theory. I agree with all of the above.

View original

Apols. I should have put a smilie there.

Quote: sootyj @ July 22 2009, 12:26 PM BST

I was thinking more of the 1000s who staffed NASA during the moon landings, who would have been the same people who helped establish the systems.

View original

Yes, but if they're recieving signals from space (just like the rehearsals they run in the prior months via the TETR-A satellite) how are they to know whether the capsule is manned or not? To all intents, it would appear to be so, wouldn't it?

Quote: Griff @ July 22 2009, 12:28 PM BST

I'm inclined to cut scientists some slack on the grounds that they PRODUCE USEFUL SHIT like, umm, the whole of modern technology, which could be said to go some way towards backing up the wacky mumbo-jumbo they insist on talking.

View original

Quite I don't care if Sellafield is run by Pixies on treadmills, or jet engines are powered by farting orcs. If the scientist priests tell me how things work I don't care cos they work.

Unlike religion and insulting astronauts.

Quote: sootyj @ July 22 2009, 12:31 PM BST

Unlike religion and insulting astronauts.

View original

Tell me which astronaut insulted you and I'll punch him in the eye.