Official Outer Limits/Debunking Thread - Page 9

donniccolo · 04-25-2010, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atakdog

We established a program to land on the moon to prove that we could. Given that it worked, we spent the incremental whatever it was to go a few more times, but eventually decided it wasn't worth it any more.

Now it would cost orders of magnitude more to go, in part because our attitudes about risking the lives of astronauts have changed so we'd insist on it being ridiculously over-engineered, and there's still not a lot we would want to do that can't be done about as well in a much easier way.

And I don't see any problem believing that we beat the Russians getting there. Their technology was on a par, perhaps overall superior in some ways, but not so superior that it is impossible to believe — and perhaps the biggest reason I believe it is that afaik they never, ever tried to debunk it. The USSR had an enormous interest in showing that we didn't get there, and there was never any serious suggestion to that effect. They had their program; they knew what was possible... and they believed it. I consider that strong evidence.

Politics, I suspect. Don't know. I certainly have no difficulty imagining politicians proposing grand plans, and the bureaucrats and scientists who would benefit from implementing those plans going along with it. I also have no problem believing that the money wasn't there, given what I suspect was the missions' proponents failure to demonstrate much benefit that would come therefrom.

I suspect, and rather hope, that you don't actually believe this.

I we have an endless bankroll I wonder why we are not spending more of it on things that would get incumbent politicians reelected, like free housing and health care for everyone. that's a ridiculous position of course, but so is yours. Marginal dollars matter; marginal hundreds of billions matter quite a bit.

Yes.

If there is a great reason for doing it, and sufficient wealth that it would seem reasonable, and we don't, then perhaps I'll have my doubts, but there would have to be more evidence than just that.

Strangely enough, low gravity is pretty much the same 400 miles up, 240,000 miles up, and 34,000,000 miles up. So is freedom from atmospheric influence on instruments. (think Hubble telescope — would it really be so much better if it were on the moon?) There aren't any minerals to mine in orbit, but mining the moon is millennia from being economical.

For most realistic purposes, they are quite comparable.

You continue, also, to ignore the way the world of technology has changed since the sixties. Then, to go to the moon and expect to get anything back or even learn much about it pretty much required that we send humans. Now, computer technology has advanced sufficiently far (many billion-fold, I think) that it's perfectly reasonable to send unmanned probes to do many of our research and technological tasks. Not all, perhaps, but it changes the cost/benefit curve dramatically. Couple that with the cultural changes that have made even a single death a big deal, and what you get is the cessation of manned programs to the moon. If we decided we needed to go back, I suspect we would send robots, not people, so a failure to send people wouldn't imply anything about whether we'd done it in the past.

good reply - very well thought out. i like you, even though i don't see eye to eye with you. i certainly can see most if not all of the points you make. i simply believe it could've and did go another way. i think its hard to say that this happened w/ 110% certainty.

MelchyBeau · 04-27-2010, 02:22 PM

I give to you the greatest fringe theory ever made.

Do not open at work: http://www.timecube.com/

vhawk01 · 04-27-2010, 03:32 PM

I dunno, hollow earth with people inside is pretty good

plaaynde · 07-16-2010, 08:17 PM

Bump.

Maybe we could have some mindblowing discussions here again.

Is Elvis still alive? Did man land on moon? How about the JFK conspiracy? Some new topic to discuss? How about something really accepted where you want to put a question mark? Not so serious suggestions would also be fun. Who knows, maybe it is the one per cent /one promill that is fit for evolution? You know, "It all started at the 2+2 SMP forum"

11t · 07-16-2010, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MelchyBeau

I give to you the greatest fringe theory ever made.

Do not open at work: http://www.timecube.com/

i think that website has activated my schizophrenia

plaaynde · 07-16-2010, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 11t

i think that website has activated my schizophrenia

It looks the link is too wacky even for this thread: EARTH HAS 4 CORNER

11t · 07-16-2010, 08:42 PM

hahaha

donniccolo · 07-17-2010, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plaaynde

Bump.

Maybe we could have some mindblowing discussions here again.

Is Elvis still alive? Did man land on moon? How about the JFK conspiracy? Some new topic to discuss? How about something really accepted where you want to put a question mark? Not so serious suggestions would also be fun. Who knows, maybe it is the one per cent /one promill that is fit for evolution? You know, "It all started at the 2+2 SMP forum"

i had an entire thread devoted to this subject but the mods deemed that it wasn't threadworthy and in some way it led to this thread. i hope the mods realize that maybe we'd do better w/ a fringe forum or simply allowing one fringe thread per topic instead of trying to cram every single "fringe" thread into one thread.

also, the use of the word "fringe" isn't fair in regards to the moon landing as it is highly unlikely that humans have ever walked on the moon.

chezlaw · 07-17-2010, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donniccolo

also, the use of the word "fringe" isn't fair in regards to the moon landing as it is highly unlikely that humans have ever walked on the moon.

Absolutely, "fringe" most definitely isn't the right word.

guesswest · 07-17-2010, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

Absolutely, "fringe" most definitely isn't the right word.

I hope you're saying that even 'fringe' gives the idea too much credibility?

guesswest · 07-17-2010, 08:52 AM

BTW I don't know or care much about this subject, but isn't JFK assassination the big exception in that list? I was under the impression it was pretty much proven that the official account is bogus and debate was just re what form the conspiracy took? I'm also pretty sure it is a majority of people who believe it was a conspiracy, which means it's not fringe by definition.

plaaynde · 07-17-2010, 09:10 AM

I´ve only seen speculations about conspiracies in the JFK case. No real facts. C´mon, Oswald in a conspiration?

guesswest · 07-17-2010, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plaaynde

I´ve only seen speculations about conspiracies in the JFK case. No real facts. C´mon, Oswald in a conspiration?

Like I said, I have no idea about any of this stuff - I was just under the impression that it was pretty widely accepted to be a conspiracy of some sort. If I'm wrong I stand corrected.

plaaynde · 07-17-2010, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donniccolo

as it is highly unlikely that humans have ever walked on the moon.

Have you become more assured about that? I recall you earlier on just found it possible?

donniccolo · 07-17-2010, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guesswest

I hope you're saying that even 'fringe' gives the idea too much credibility?

lolz you know. you were there, right? ;-)

lemme guess: you're also 100% certain that your religion is the "correct" one, amirite?

i love when people are sure of things they can't possibly be sure of. it makes me