<a class="postlink" href="http://tech.ca.msn.com/video/?cp-documentid=21bdcd6e-039c-40b7-82eb-3ea3f0e25a9f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://tech.ca.msn.com/video/?cp-docume ... a3f0e25a9f</a> NASA has released photos and video that show the equipment left behind from the Apollo lunar missions. The photos are detailed enough to show footprints and buggy tracks. Focus: Will this silence the critics? Does everyone believe that we have, in fact, landed on the moon?
Conspiracy theories generally don't have anything to do with facts. Their believers are more interested in the feeling of superiority from being an Enlightened One than actually taking an honest look at the evidence. With that mindset, what's some more evidence?
Or maybe that's just what you want us to think. People who believe the moon-landing was faked, 9/11 Truthers, folks who think that the UN is controlled by a secret alliance between reptilian shapeshifters (Obama is one of them) in cahoots with the Illuminati and crypto-Jews within the executive branch, etc. aren't going to be swayed regardless of the truth. It's sort of like arguing with a Creationist. That being said, we shouldn't dismiss every single conspiracy we hear about as bullshit. I'll try to stray from the political here, but kneejerk skepticism is undesirable too. To cite an example, look at something like the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
I agree with that. "Kneejerk skepticism" is exactly what we want. I think "kneejerk dismissal" might not be good - I believe it's worth keeping an open mind about reasonable alternate explanations. I don't know why people bother trying to release evidence to silence the fringe conspiracy theorists. Without getting political, I was rather disappointed that Obama released his long form birth certificate, and feel the same about most releases of information targeted at the crazies. Why give them that level of validation? Why lend a shred of credence to their ridiculous yammering? Of course we landed on the moon, why would anyone want to even put the deniers in the spotlight by trying to prove them wrong? They are not interested in facts, and nothing you can release is going to prove them wrong. Even if you flew them to the moon personally, they'd say, "well, sure, now you can get here. 1969 was faked, though."
I didn't get ina fight with a 9/11 Truther until 11:30 last night. And I was so close too (He ended the argument with 'You probably believe in Santa too. You don't understand I've talked to my military contacts no plane hit the pentagon') Skepticism of official stories is fine, but clinging to your initial 'enlightenment' is worse than simply not exercising the skepticism in the first place. It's almost like "I changed my mind once, I refuse to look at evidence to change my mind again". It's a very frustrating mindset to deal with. It's like initially trying to think critically, then just saying "meh fuck it".
Bad phrasing on my part, "kneejerk dismissal" is exactly what I meant. Thanks for putting it so succinctly. Powerful groups and governments can and will try to manipulate people, so we can't dismiss everybody who suspects shady government dealings as the sort of person who thinks that Communists want to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. Anybody reasonable knows that the Reichstag fire was a conspiracy perpetrated by the Nazis to consolidate their power, or that big oil companies collude with one another to maximize profits, so this sort of shit does happen. There's plenty of good reason to release evidence to debunk unfounded conspiracy theories - you're not aiming to convince people that believe in them wholeheartedly, your goal is to convince people on the fence or people who haven't really thought about the issue that much. It's the same reason why reasonable folks debunk Creationism; you're not going to sway that guy who is absolutely convinced that the world is 6,000 years old, your goal is just to make everyone else who's open minded realize just how ridiculous those beliefs are. It's all about winning hearts and minds. Undergoing a paradigm shift like that is a long-term game, so you can't think about it in a way like "If they want to be idiots, fuck 'em." You constantly have to fight for reason. Obama was right to release his birth certificate because all of a sudden Donald Trump looks like a giant asshole for stirring trouble. It's not about giving anybody validation or anything petty like that - it's about letting everybody know that what Trump was trying to smear his reputation and that his antics had no basis in reality.' I'm sorry to go into politics like that, but it really is unavoidable here.
If you actually care: <a class="postlink" href="http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html</a>
Dude, you should stick to your Protocols of the Elders of Zion rants bud, your mask of sanity is slipping. If you dont realize NASA's role in the advancement in telecommunications, weather tracking, GPS, etc and the benefits as a result, I don't know how to help you. Just because NASA hasn't provided you with a plane ride to the moon doesn't mean they haven't done a metric fuck ton to advance technology and help society.
You don't know the answers, only because you haven't spent ten seconds looking. Only because it's easier to post a flippant response than it is to actually seek the knowledge you claim to be looking for. It only makes you look like a dumbass. We aren't here to spoon feed you. Five minutes on Google would give you dozens and dozens of answers. Your post is no different than if I posted "hurrrr, prove to me that it wasn't space aliens" in the 9/11 thread - it's not like you're asking for support of an argument where you have provided a thoughtful and reasonable counterpoint. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=nasa+contributions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... tributions</a>
We do. They're electric. Other significant improvements could be made if we got past the aesthetic issues presented by some really good modifications. The issue isn't the technology, it's the cost and popularity of the tech. People are not willing to shell out a few thousand more bucks to get something with a shorter range than their gas SUV. RAV4s, CR-Vs, and Escapes seem to be the most popular choices.
Be that way. The Swedish Bikini Team and I will be leaving your ass behind when we head to Mars to avoid the planet-killing asteroid headed our way.
I personally think the space program is beneficial for a lot of the technology that we use and see on a daily basis. What I don't think was financially prudent was the shuttle program. I feel it was just the public face of NASA for the general public to see some cool shit. 30 years of orbiting earth on 3 different space stations. I think I read somewhere a while back that it cost $4 billion just to launch the shuttle. I feel the money for that could have been spent elsewhere.