Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
more proof that Moon Landings were not a hoax. They can't create lunar gravity on Earth. If they did the astronauts would have to walk very fast. BTW the whole Mythbusters Episdoe dealing with the moon ladings: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/mythbusters-moon-landing-hoax/
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited December 2010
I completely respect what peiople wish to believe and what reasons they have.
I don't deny that.
But I just don't buy it.
That's all.
I'm sorry you feel insulted, and that wasn't my intention.
If you feel that way, I'll bow out of this one, respectfully.
But I'm entitled to my own views too.
Thanks. It's funny that you bring this up. My dad worked on the medical sensor telemetry from space during Apollo. There is a funny/true scene in the Apollo 13 movie where the crew gets sick of wearing them and tears them off.
" I am tired of the entire world knowing how my kidneys are finctioning!"
Do you have any idea how insulting all of this is?
Oh, right, she shouldn't express her opinion on this matter because it makes you feel bad.
Fede is being a loon, but the fact her opinion has insulting implications about your ancestors is irrelevant. She shouldn't have to not talk about it because it makes you feel bad.
What is true is already so.
Owning up to it doesn't make it worse.
Not being open about it doesn't make it go away.
And because it's true, it is what is there to be interacted with.
Anything untrue isn't there to be lived.
People can stand what is true,
for they are already enduring it.
Why do people have so much emotional attachment to the moon landing?
What someone else thinks about the moon landing has absolutely no effect on the present moment, nor does it alter what actually happened. Understanding that fact makes it possible to try to understand the other side's beliefs and discuss your own without getting emotional about it.
Oh, right, she shouldn't express her opinion on this matter because it makes you feel bad.
Fede is being a loon, but the fact her opinion has insulting implications about your ancestors is irrelevant. She shouldn't have to not talk about it because it makes you feel bad.
So now, should Buddha _Rocket not express how he feels because it pisses you off? Anyway, my father was the television anchorman for the Apollo 10 thru 13 missions for CBC. They went to a lot of trouble to cover every detail of the events. Pretty unlikely they would have fallen for a hoax. I always thought that the moon landing was accepted as a fact and I am quite surprised to see this going on here.
Rocket, I salute your parents and all of the others they worked with for the effert that they put in to make the world a better place. I am sorry for the loss of your father not so long ago. I know this does not really help, but he was part of one of the great leaps in human history.
Beautifully said. Buddha_Rocket--and robot--your parents' efforts are evidence of the interconnectedness of sentient beings, of the gratitude we owe not only to all those sharing the world at the present time, but to those who came before.
Oh, right, she shouldn't express her opinion on this matter because it makes you feel bad.
Fede is being a loon, but the fact her opinion has insulting implications about your ancestors is irrelevant. She shouldn't have to not talk about it because it makes you feel bad.
No. It's just very disrespectful for those good people who dedicated, risked and lost their lives for human space exploration.
I was also friends with the daughter of Astronaut Ellison Onizuka who died on Space Shuttle Challenger in 1986. We were in high school together when it happened. He was Buddhist, but at the time I knew nothing about Buddhism.
Some years ago, after I had discovered Buddhism, I came across his quote from him: (it's funny how things come back at you)
One example of this different perspective is a memorable quote from Ellison Onizuka, the Japanese-American astronaut who died in the tragic Space Shuttle Challenger explosion in 1987. Onizuka, a Buddhist, once said of his experience in outer space, "I saw the Pure Land...it is the land of 'no boundaries.'" The "Pure Land" is the symbol for the Buddhist awakening in Pure Land Buddhism. However, it isn't really a "place" to go to. Moreover, it isn't a "destination" far away or something only accessible after death. According to the founder of our Jodo Shinshu Buddhist tradition, Shinran Shonin (a 13th century Japanese Buddhist priest), the Pure Land is really just the everyday world around us, however this is a "world" to which we who are unawakened, are unaware of. Thus, the "goal" in Buddhism is to become awakened, or as is sometimes said symbolically in Jodo Shinshu, "Be reborn in the Pure Land," and receive the same kind of awakened attitude Shinran Shonin had. Shakyamuni Buddha himself had this same awakening some 2500 years ago. After Shinran's awakening at the age of 29, and Shakyamuni's awakening at the age of 35, they both lived everyday in this awakened, "Pure Land." Ultimately, Buddhism is a teaching designed to help us follow in the footsteps of our Buddhist teachers, and like them, live the most peaceful, fulfilling, and creative life.
What exactly did Astronaut Onizuka mean by describing the Pure Land as a "land of no boundaries?" From a Buddhist standpoint, "boundaries" really means "distinctions" or "dualities." In other words, from high above the Earth, one simply cannot see the political, religious and racial "distinctions" we take for granted here on Earth, such as national borders, regional areas of religious strife, racial conflicts, etc. All of these problems can be traced back to the judgmental tendencies of the human ego. Specifically, Buddhism teaches us that the ego-self, which tends to be self-centered, self-righteous, and to possess an inflated sense of self-importance, is the true root of not only our own suffering, but the suffering we cause others around us. The judgmental nature of the human ego tends to result in a "dualistic" way of looking at everything. In other words, as we look around us, we tend to see other people as either "good or bad," "like me or different from me," "friend or foe." But Buddhism teaches us that all of these evaluations are really just arbitrary products of the ego. The ego-self, with its innately self-centered perspective, tends to evaluate all things in ways that are usually complimentary to itself. On the other hand, in reality--in the Pure Land--there are no boundaries and no distinctions; in the absence of the ego-self, all life is one, all life can be appreciated as interdependent.
When I heard Ellison Onizuka's comment about the Pure Land, I realized that the greatest value of our space program may not actually be, as we so often hear in the media, in the technological advances we gain from space exploration. I believe the greatest value of our space program is the astronauts themselves. As human beings, they have tried to share with us their unique and often transforming experiences in space. In sharing their experiences with us, these astronauts are really our teachers. They are trying to open our eyes, or as we say in Buddhism, trying to help awaken us from our delusion and slumber, from our narrow, self-centered way of viewing things. They are trying to get us to see the problem of our ego-self, and that we are always viewing things from our own decidedly skewed perspective, only seeing a small fraction of the "big picture."
Fede made a (crazy) factual claim, and you came back with an emotive argument. That is no way to shed light on the issue, and a great way to heat it up. Debate on the causes, conditions and results of a war is often shut down in the same way. ("You're insulting the troops! Are you saying my nephew in the Marines is an imperialist barbarian?!")
Fede made a (crazy) factual claim, and you came back with an emotive argument. That is no way to shed light on the issue, and a great way to heat it up. Debate on the causes, conditions and results of a war is often shut down in the same way. ("You're insulting the troops! Are you saying my nephew in the Marines is an imperialist barbarian?!")
That may be true to some extent, but I think Buddha_Rocket was (understandably) more concerned with the perceived slight to his/her loved ones than with following correct polemical form. For them, the issue was already 'heated up', to paraphrase your words.
This is probably worth a look for anyone who's interested in the magic bacteria from the OP:
NASA's shameful analysis of the alleged bacteria in the Mars meteorite made me very suspicious of their microbiology, an attitude that's only strengthened by my reading of this paper. Basically, it don't present ANY convincing evidence that arsenic has been incorporated into DNA (or any other biological molecule).
(I haven't had time to go through either the original paper or this commentary.)
Fede made a (crazy) factual claim, and you came back with an emotive argument. That is no way to shed light on the issue, and a great way to heat it up. Debate on the causes, conditions and results of a war is often shut down in the same way. ("You're insulting the troops! Are you saying my nephew in the Marines is an imperialist barbarian?!")
I thought I stated a lot of facts, unless you want to call me a liar too.
So everyone I know who worked in mission control during Apollo were either falling for a hoax or were part of the hoax... The spaceships, spacesuits, moon buggies etc. that people designed never really saw action on the moon. You would think some of the thousands engineers would have figured this out.
And the astronauts and engineers all lied to their families too etc. Do you see how ridiculous this all is?
So I want to know - did my parents and countless others while working in mission control, KSC, the Navy, etc. fall for the hoax or is my entire life a lie?
I thought I stated a lot of facts, unless you want to call me a liar too.
By "factual claim" I didn't mean it's true, I meant it's claiming to state a fact. The contravening facts you brought up are relevant. That you feel insulted by the claim is not.
voyaging, the main motive for faking the moon landing (hypothetically) would be to beat the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was already the first to send man to space and accomplished the first unmanned moon landing. America had to save face as they were losing the space race.
'course then you might say, "Well wouldn't Soviets be the first to point out any hoax?"
To which a conspiracy theorist might reply "Well, when they developed the tracking technology, America abruptly stopped their moon landing programs." To which you might *facepalm*.
Yes, they think no man has been on the moon. No, they know we have satellites, lunar probes and mars rovers.... and telescopes. Associating a conspiracy theory with other ridiculous accusations doesn't address help anyone.
Getting back on track, if it's not too late, I just saw a major headline asking, "Does the new form of life spell trouble for religions? Vatican will be responding!"
Trouble? Even for those religions that don't like to admit evolution happened, it's not like the tiny bacteria stood up and spoke to the researchers. Sometimes I dispair at the collective stupidity of the people who are supposed to be educated enough to write news stories.
Besides, the blog post I linked to above strongly suggests that the central conclusions of the paper are premature at best. Until someone does the assay recommended in the comments to that post of measuring the molecular weight of the DNA in the bacteria, there is no reason to believe that they have taken up the arsenic as an essential component of their biochemistry.
Besides, the blog post I linked to above strongly suggests that the central conclusions of the paper are premature at best. Until someone does the assay recommended in the comments to that post of measuring the molecular weight of the DNA in the bacteria, there is no reason to believe that they have taken up the arsenic as an essential component of their biochemistry.
If what that blog post says is true, then it sounds like they artificially selected for colonies that could use arsenic, it would be interesting to try the same experiments with bacteria from other sources and different species. Perhaps many kinds of life can substitute arsenic for phosphorus when stressed?
voyaging, the main motive for faking the moon landing (hypothetically) would be to beat the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was already the first to send man to space and accomplished the first unmanned moon landing. America had to save face as they were losing the space race.
'course then you might say, "Well wouldn't Soviets be the first to point out any hoax?"
To which a conspiracy theorist might reply "Well, when they developed the tracking technology, America abruptly stopped their moon landing programs." To which you might *facepalm*.
Yes, they think no man has been on the moon. No, they know we have satellites, lunar probes and mars rovers.... and telescopes. Associating a conspiracy theory with other ridiculous accusations doesn't address help anyone.
Sorry for the offense, I just thought the moon landing was a commonly accepted fact. Just like the 9/11 attacks actually being performed by terrorists.
Sorry for the offense, I just thought the moon landing was a commonly accepted fact. Just like the 9/11 attacks actually being performed by terrorists.
None taken. The moon landing, is commonly accepted as fact, the problem is that for every fact, there will be someone to deny it.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Fede, I'm really interested in the arguments invalidating the video evidence, showing long takes of men in suits appearing to move under greatly reduced gravity.
I really am not going to comment further, except to say that If it's true, it's beyond denial.
It's not beyond denial.
I will concede that this doesn't make it untrue.
I just don't believe it.
There's a difference.
Researchers question the science behind last week's revelation of arsenic-based life.
That is what scientific publications and testing is for. They can blog all they want. If they want to prove they are wrong. Test it a lab and make a scientific publication.
As a biochemist, I'll settle this dispute (I won't touch moon-landing ).I have access to the paper published through my university (only have to pay $35k a year to read all the technical papers you could want!)
Basically, for those who know what this means...: uXANES (use X-ray to calc. absorption edge), nanoSIMS (analysis of purified DNA), uXRF (micro X-Ray fluorescence), and weight of As:P in these cells all confirm As in DNA (as well as As in correct oxidation state needed for DNA).
My opinion: Without a doubt, these bacteria can deal with As better than anything ever seen... as far as whether or not its using As in its DNA or whether it's just sequestering the As, I'm fairly convinced by this paper. Like others, though, I'd also like to see it reproduced by another team (which will be soon).
That is what scientific publications and testing is for. They can blog all they want. If they want to prove they are wrong. Test it a lab and make a scientific publication.
That's not the way it works. What you're appealing to here is just another form of authoritarianism, no substitute for vigilance and critical thinking.
That's not the way it works. What you're appealing to here is just another form of authoritarianism, no substitute for vigilance and critical thinking.
How is the scientific method a form of authoritarianism?
How is the scientific method a form of authoritarianism?
Your argument "it's published in a scientific paper, there are no contradictory scientific papers, so I'll believe this idea without weighing the mounting criticisms of it until such publications come along" has nothing to do with the scientific method.
Comments
<object width="480" height="385">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NxZMjpMhwNE?fs=1&hl=en_US&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></object>
I don't deny that.
But I just don't buy it.
That's all.
I'm sorry you feel insulted, and that wasn't my intention.
If you feel that way, I'll bow out of this one, respectfully.
But I'm entitled to my own views too.
" I am tired of the entire world knowing how my kidneys are finctioning!"
I think thats how it was done in the movie
Great stuff
Fede is being a loon, but the fact her opinion has insulting implications about your ancestors is irrelevant. She shouldn't have to not talk about it because it makes you feel bad.
What someone else thinks about the moon landing has absolutely no effect on the present moment, nor does it alter what actually happened. Understanding that fact makes it possible to try to understand the other side's beliefs and discuss your own without getting emotional about it.
It is, but on an online forum of so many people, there are going to be a few sceptics.
Beautifully said. Buddha_Rocket--and robot--your parents' efforts are evidence of the interconnectedness of sentient beings, of the gratitude we owe not only to all those sharing the world at the present time, but to those who came before.
No. It's just very disrespectful for those good people who dedicated, risked and lost their lives for human space exploration.
I was also friends with the daughter of Astronaut Ellison Onizuka who died on Space Shuttle Challenger in 1986. We were in high school together when it happened. He was Buddhist, but at the time I knew nothing about Buddhism.
Some years ago, after I had discovered Buddhism, I came across his quote from him: (it's funny how things come back at you)
One example of this different perspective is a memorable quote from Ellison Onizuka, the Japanese-American astronaut who died in the tragic Space Shuttle Challenger explosion in 1987. Onizuka, a Buddhist, once said of his experience in outer space, "I saw the Pure Land...it is the land of 'no boundaries.'" The "Pure Land" is the symbol for the Buddhist awakening in Pure Land Buddhism. However, it isn't really a "place" to go to. Moreover, it isn't a "destination" far away or something only accessible after death. According to the founder of our Jodo Shinshu Buddhist tradition, Shinran Shonin (a 13th century Japanese Buddhist priest), the Pure Land is really just the everyday world around us, however this is a "world" to which we who are unawakened, are unaware of. Thus, the "goal" in Buddhism is to become awakened, or as is sometimes said symbolically in Jodo Shinshu, "Be reborn in the Pure Land," and receive the same kind of awakened attitude Shinran Shonin had. Shakyamuni Buddha himself had this same awakening some 2500 years ago. After Shinran's awakening at the age of 29, and Shakyamuni's awakening at the age of 35, they both lived everyday in this awakened, "Pure Land." Ultimately, Buddhism is a teaching designed to help us follow in the footsteps of our Buddhist teachers, and like them, live the most peaceful, fulfilling, and creative life.
What exactly did Astronaut Onizuka mean by describing the Pure Land as a "land of no boundaries?" From a Buddhist standpoint, "boundaries" really means "distinctions" or "dualities." In other words, from high above the Earth, one simply cannot see the political, religious and racial "distinctions" we take for granted here on Earth, such as national borders, regional areas of religious strife, racial conflicts, etc. All of these problems can be traced back to the judgmental tendencies of the human ego. Specifically, Buddhism teaches us that the ego-self, which tends to be self-centered, self-righteous, and to possess an inflated sense of self-importance, is the true root of not only our own suffering, but the suffering we cause others around us. The judgmental nature of the human ego tends to result in a "dualistic" way of looking at everything. In other words, as we look around us, we tend to see other people as either "good or bad," "like me or different from me," "friend or foe." But Buddhism teaches us that all of these evaluations are really just arbitrary products of the ego. The ego-self, with its innately self-centered perspective, tends to evaluate all things in ways that are usually complimentary to itself. On the other hand, in reality--in the Pure Land--there are no boundaries and no distinctions; in the absence of the ego-self, all life is one, all life can be appreciated as interdependent.
When I heard Ellison Onizuka's comment about the Pure Land, I realized that the greatest value of our space program may not actually be, as we so often hear in the media, in the technological advances we gain from space exploration. I believe the greatest value of our space program is the astronauts themselves. As human beings, they have tried to share with us their unique and often transforming experiences in space. In sharing their experiences with us, these astronauts are really our teachers. They are trying to open our eyes, or as we say in Buddhism, trying to help awaken us from our delusion and slumber, from our narrow, self-centered way of viewing things. They are trying to get us to see the problem of our ego-self, and that we are always viewing things from our own decidedly skewed perspective, only seeing a small fraction of the "big picture."
That may be true to some extent, but I think Buddha_Rocket was (understandably) more concerned with the perceived slight to his/her loved ones than with following correct polemical form. For them, the issue was already 'heated up', to paraphrase your words.
I thought I stated a lot of facts, unless you want to call me a liar too.
So everyone I know who worked in mission control during Apollo were either falling for a hoax or were part of the hoax... The spaceships, spacesuits, moon buggies etc. that people designed never really saw action on the moon. You would think some of the thousands engineers would have figured this out.
And the astronauts and engineers all lied to their families too etc. Do you see how ridiculous this all is?
So I want to know - did my parents and countless others while working in mission control, KSC, the Navy, etc. fall for the hoax or is my entire life a lie?
By "factual claim" I didn't mean it's true, I meant it's claiming to state a fact. The contravening facts you brought up are relevant. That you feel insulted by the claim is not.
'course then you might say, "Well wouldn't Soviets be the first to point out any hoax?"
To which a conspiracy theorist might reply "Well, when they developed the tracking technology, America abruptly stopped their moon landing programs." To which you might *facepalm*.
Yes, they think no man has been on the moon. No, they know we have satellites, lunar probes and mars rovers.... and telescopes. Associating a conspiracy theory with other ridiculous accusations doesn't address help anyone.
Trouble? Even for those religions that don't like to admit evolution happened, it's not like the tiny bacteria stood up and spoke to the researchers. Sometimes I dispair at the collective stupidity of the people who are supposed to be educated enough to write news stories.
Sorry for the offense, I just thought the moon landing was a commonly accepted fact. Just like the 9/11 attacks actually being performed by terrorists.
None taken. The moon landing, is commonly accepted as fact, the problem is that for every fact, there will be someone to deny it.
http://www.thevoiceofreason.com/Conspiracy/moon.htm
I really am not going to comment further, except to say that If it's true, it's beyond denial.
It's not beyond denial.
I will concede that this doesn't make it untrue.
I just don't believe it.
There's a difference.
Researchers question the science behind last week's revelation of arsenic-based life.
I like to think I can lighten the mood....:D
Ah.
Right.
Back to my first post then.
And no further comment.
That is what scientific publications and testing is for. They can blog all they want. If they want to prove they are wrong. Test it a lab and make a scientific publication.
Basically, for those who know what this means...: uXANES (use X-ray to calc. absorption edge), nanoSIMS (analysis of purified DNA), uXRF (micro X-Ray fluorescence), and weight of As:P in these cells all confirm As in DNA (as well as As in correct oxidation state needed for DNA).
My opinion: Without a doubt, these bacteria can deal with As better than anything ever seen... as far as whether or not its using As in its DNA or whether it's just sequestering the As, I'm fairly convinced by this paper. Like others, though, I'd also like to see it reproduced by another team (which will be soon).
How is the scientific method a form of authoritarianism?
Personally, I'm tickled to see that the phrase "they started it" is actually used by at least one party.
Your argument "it's published in a scientific paper, there are no contradictory scientific papers, so I'll believe this idea without weighing the mounting criticisms of it until such publications come along" has nothing to do with the scientific method.
Also, there is no scientific method if you look at it closely. (Kind of like non-self, in a way.
Know I recognize him. The anarchist view of science. I've meet a lot of Marixists who don't support his view.