Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - garygreen

Pages: < Back  1 ... 69 70 [71] 72 73 ... 80  Next >
1401
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Marriage equality in Australia
« on: April 03, 2015, 07:30:22 PM »
So as long as it's two consenting adults who aren't biologically related
Its 2015. There should be no limits on love, I keep being told. We live in an age of contraception. Why shouldn't two siblings be able to have consensual sex? Because you don't like it? I don't like the idea of gay sex, but I'm shouted down as a homophobe by the carping neoliberals. There isn't a reason on earth two siblings shouldn't have sex. Unless of course you'd like to have a discussion about morality, in which case you need to form an argument as to the morality behind shoving your dick up another man's bum.

I don't understand how either of those things count as immoral acts for you.  Please tell me more about your system of ethics.

Hey, don't you dare get in the way of love. If two people love each other, what has it got to do with you?

Setting aside that sibling love/marriage and homosexual love/marriage aren't even close to the same thing, you make an entirely reasonable point.  Now that you mention it, I can't think of much reason two adult siblings should be prohibited from either consensual sex, or marriage equality.

1402
Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy, markjo. Do you have any arguments that aren't fallacious?

Shouldn't this cut both ways?  I mean, the argument advanced by the conspiracists in this thread is basically just "I can't imagine why there wouldn't be longer shots/more panoramic shots" mixed in with a huge false dilemma (Apollo can only be as I expect it to be, or fake).

Just look at Tom's very next post after yours:
    If you rode a machine into the center of the earth, like in that one movie, and found a world of wonders, the first thing you would  naturally do with the video camera in your hand would be to pan around.

    It would be very odd if several people went down to the center of the earth and didn't pan around with their video camrras.

    And if you were making a lengthy documentary if your experiences, especially, at some point you would make a half circle pan with your video camera.

"I would have done things differently, therefore those things must not have been done at all."  Argument from incredulity and false dilemma.  In my view, anyway.  I bet y'all will disagree.

This is my main problem with the conspiracist view at large.  It's all argument from incredulity.

1403
The video implies it by the quote in the OP ("before we send people"). Van Allen belt radiation is dangerous for human beings.

If you insist.  I'm just going by what the video-dude says.  At this point you're saying that the video author didn't mean what he said explicitly, but did mean something he didn't mention at all.  Ok.

If "radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, on-board computers, and other electronics on Orion," then that's obviously going to be dangerous for the human beings in Orion.  Losing those things mid flight would probably be dangerous.  So we should probably test this hypothesis "before we send people."

Quote
NASA claimed to have conquered this challenge in 1969, but are clearly concerned about it here as if they have never been through the belt before. Why?

Probably because Orion is new.  I expect Orion to have much more (and more sophisticated) electronics than rockets and modules built in 1969.  I honestly can't believe I even have to point that out.

1404
Electronics is not the problem. People are the problem.

That's not what the video says.  The video says the contrary of the former and nothing of the latter.

1405
Some people believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have been instantly killed in the Van Allen radiation belts. Now, we have proof that shows this is correct.

Apparently NASA now believes that traveling through the belts will kill the passengers of any craft without proper shielding...

Actually, the NASA dude says: "Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, on-board computers, and other electronics on Orion."

Are you saying that the Van Allen belt's radiation is not harmful to organic lifeforms? Do you have any evidence to support this outlandish claim?

I know virtually nothing about the Van Allen belt.  I'm saying that this video does not feature NASA saying, "Astronauts would have been instantly killed in the Van Allen radiation belts," or "Traveling through the belts will kill the passengers of any craft without proper shielding."  It says that the belt can harm electronics.

You claimed that this video "proves" that "astronauts would have been instantly killed in the Van Allen radiation belts."  I don't see how that could be the case.

1406
Some people believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have been instantly killed in the Van Allen radiation belts. Now, we have proof that shows this is correct.

Apparently NASA now believes that traveling through the belts will kill the passengers of any craft without proper shielding...

Actually, the NASA dude says: "Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, on-board computers, and other electronics on Orion."

1407
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
« on: March 13, 2015, 12:17:23 AM »
If he deserved to be fired, why wasn't he fired?

I dunno.  Probably a bunch of complicated reasons about which I can obviously only speculate.  I mean, it's not really uncommon for someone to be asked to resign over being outright fired, so whatever those reasons generally are probably apply here.  But you probably read some stuff about it on the internet, so I'll just defer to your good judgement.

Quote
Why resort to scare tactics when the case is so trivial?

The DoJ declaring your police department to be systemically racist is hardly trivial.  People lose their jobs over that sort of thing.

Quote
Oh, that's right, because omitting public scrutiny is the cool thing to do in America these days. God forbid someone might read the report and notice how little evidence it provides for its extraordinary claims.

Perhaps you could be more specific about which claims you felt lacked support.  Just sort of declaring that the report is bullshit isn't super helpful or persuasive.

1408
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
« on: March 12, 2015, 08:55:36 PM »
Yep.  Bullied out of his job.  Somehow.

Or maybe he was just shitty at his job and deserved to be fired.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/department-of-justice-report-on-the-ferguson-mo-police-department/1435/
    Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs. This emphasis on revenue has compromised the institutional character of Ferguson’s police department, contributing to a pattern of unconstitutional policing, and has also shaped its municipal court, leading to procedures that raise due process concerns and inflict unnecessary harm on members of the Ferguson community. Further, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including racial stereotypes. Ferguson’s own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact African Americans.

1409
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: March 11, 2015, 02:36:10 PM »
OH HELL YEAH FUCK YES THIS IS AWESOME

1410
hey guess what narcotics are being used pretty much all the time by millions of people even though they're illegal:

all of them.

1411
Flat Earth Community / Re: No Transmission Delays to the Moon
« on: March 04, 2015, 03:24:18 PM »
I am pointing out that your explanation requires an unbelievable coincidence. What are the chances that the question would be the exact length necessary for an immediate answer, as if they were on a telephone call in the same building?

Your personal incredulity is not persuasive to me.

Why was a sentence as long as it was and not longer or shorter or different?  I don't have any idea.

What are the odds of a sentence fragment being approximately 2.5 seconds in length?  Probably not 'unbelievable' or 'astronomical.'

I have question for you: why doesn't Schmitt reply, "No, we emptied those into 5"?  Why does he reply, "No we...we em...we emptied those into 5."  You claim that they sound as if they're on a telephone call.  So why doesn't Schmitt reply as if he's on a telephone call?  If it was a telephone call, then I would expect the audio to sound like this: https://soundcloud.com/garygreen-1/apollo17pt3edit2

1412
Flat Earth Community / Re: No Transmission Delays to the Moon
« on: March 04, 2015, 03:48:37 AM »
If the Astronaut really interrupt huston, it seems odd that huston filled in the delay gap with a question of perfect length, to which an immediate answer of "No" was given. You would think that it could have been a shorter question, or a longer one, or not even a question at all, but the length of the question Huston asked just happened to be the correct length to which an answer was immediately given by the delayed astronauts interrupting huston midspeech.

Are you really asking me to explain why a sentence uttered in 1972 by someone I've never met was not shorter or longer or different?  I don't have any idea.


1413
Flat Earth Community / Re: No Transmission Delays to the Moon
« on: March 04, 2015, 12:27:44 AM »
Yes, but why is does the response Huston gives after, according to you when the astronaut interrupted them, perfectly match up with the delay, down to millisecond accuracy? Huston speaks a full sentence: ""If you have any, yeah, some of those today" and then the astronaut immediately replies "No, we emptied those into 5." Why is Huston's question spot on in length? One would think that the sentences would overlap, or there would be a gap in speech, but the astronaut responds immediately as if in the next room on a telephone call. It seems astronomical that Houston would happen to fill up the delay time with a sentence that is perfect in length and context.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying.  I'm probably misunderstanding you.  What are the two things that are exactly the same length "down to the millisecond accuracy"?

To my listening, the two sentences do overlap.  Schmitt doesn't reply, "No, we emptied those into 5."  Did you listen to the audio clip?  He replies, "No we...we em...we emptied those into 5."  In the pauses you can distinctly hear Parker's voice.

1414
Flat Earth Community / Re: No Transmission Delays to the Moon
« on: March 03, 2015, 10:30:39 PM »
Gary, why would highly trained astronauts in the middle of a mission which has to go absolutely perfectly, with little room for error, randomly interrupt mission control? Interrupting people on Earth is rude, but interrupting people on the moon seems downright suicidal to me.

There's plenty of room for error when all you're doing is putting boxes away.  That's what they're discussing in the clip in question. 

You're assuming that every moment of the mission required flawless communication to keep the astronauts alive.  Other than lunar descent and ascent, I can't think of anything the astronauts did on the Moon that would even benefit from flawless communication with Houston.  They were highly autonomous.  They set up some experiments.  They walked around.  They drove in a buggy.  They got in and out of the LEM.  What, in your opinion, did they do on the Moon that would require communication with Houston to go "absolutely perfectly"?  Since I'm really only offering my own incredulity at this point, it's a serious question.

1415
Flat Earth Community / Re: No Transmission Delays to the Moon
« on: March 03, 2015, 09:53:36 PM »
Firstly, it is blatantly absurd that the astronauts would interrupt Huston in the manner described.

If you insist.  I've already provided you with several reasons for why they would.

Secondly, according to the recording the Astronaut responds "No" immediately after Huston asks the question, as if they were right next to each other in real-time. It is against all odds that the Astronauts would interrupt Huston and then Huston would happen ask a question with the exact length, down to millisecond accuracy, that the delay takes for the Astronaut's reponse to get to earth. How is this incredible coincidence explained?

As I've mentioned before, I do not believe that Parker is asking a question.  "Copy that.  We've also got SCB-3 with the Rover samples in it on the Rover, if you have any...yeah, you have some of those today," doesn't sound at all like a question to me.  It doesn't sound like a question to me when I listen to the audio (here it is again).  It certainly isn't inflected like one.

I interpret Parker's statement like this: "I understand.  Also, the thing with the rover samples in it is on the rover if you have any samples...Oh yeah, you do have some samples today."

I'm sure that's "blatantly absurd," but it makes sense to my enfeebled, sheeple brain.

1416
Flat Earth Community / Re: No Transmission Delays to the Moon
« on: March 03, 2015, 05:18:11 PM »
tl;dr overview of the debate as I see it so far:
-  Tom offers a reductio ad absurdum proof.  He says that the premise that Apollo was real leads to an absurdity demonstrated by the tapes: Apollo/Houston must have sent/received information faster than light can travel, and nothing travels faster than light.  The burden of proving both the validity and soundness of the argument is with the OP and its defenders.
-  I argue that the proof is unsound because it makes the unreasonable assumption that Apollo/Houston would never interrupt one another.  If interruption is allowed, then there is no demonstration of information traveling faster than light.
-  PP says that I have to prove that they would ever interrupt one another.
-  I disagree that I should have to prove that they would have, but only that they (reasonably) could have.  Even so, I have articulated multiple reasons why they would have: full duplex radios, ample opportunity for mistakes/errors/poor judgement, relative importance of other factors (like time) over efficiency, lack of supporting evidence that Apollo communications should have been highly ordered, just to name a few.  I have yet to hear why these claims are unreasonable.

PP, I take the crux of your argument to be that Apollo-Houston communications would never be disordered both because they would follow strict protocols, and because efficiency of communication is of paramount importance.  Is this correct?
For the most part. I'd consider this to be the default state, and would expect both solid evidence and a rational explanation for any claims that it wasn't followed.

I mostly agree, but I think you have the same obligation to provide both solid evidence and a rational explanation for your claims that Apollo radio comms followed strict protocols and that efficiency was of paramount importance.  The one and only source you've provided to that end is a total dog-shit Wikipedia page that says both, "needs additional citations for verification," and "Some elements of voice procedure are understood across many applications, but significant variations exist."  I think that without actually credible sources that speak directly to the way Apollo communications specifically were organized, then you're just asserting that your interpretation must be the correct one to the exclusion of all other equally plausible interpretations.  I'm unconvinced.  I've already provided you with several perfectly reasonable explanations for why, even if those are default states, there were likely exceptions.  I take your argument to be not that those things couldn't happen, but that they wouldn't happen.  You need evidence to support that claim, otherwise it's just an argument from personal incredulity.

Your 'source' also doesn't have a single word to say about not cutting anyone off, or the timing of messages, or anything even remotely related.  The kinds of signaling protocols you're describing are only useful for half-duplex radios, because if you can't send and receive at the same time.  If you start talking before the other person finishes, then neither of you will hear what the other is saying, and you won't even know that messages were sent.  The same isn't true for full duplex radios.  You can send and receive simultaneously.

I merely disagree with your assertion that this must always be true.  It probably was true quite often.  I imagine that there were plenty of times when it was vitally important that strict communication protocols were required.  But, that doesn't preclude or diminish the plausibility of there being half a dozen 10-second moments among the literally hundreds of hours of recorded communications when Apollo and Houston spoke more casually.
It's not about plausibility of protocol being occasionally ignored. It's about the assertion that someone has gone and done the exact opposite of protocol at the exact time it happened to be convenient for your argument. That is a claim that shouldn't be made lightly, and is simply unacceptable as a throwaway explanation for anomalies in the recording.

Or it's a mistake.  Humans often make mistakes.  The longer we do something, the greater the probability of making a mistake.  Mistakes are very often temporary.  Every single thing you've said about their radio comms could be true and these recordings can still easily be explained as momentary lapses in judgement.  Since there are hundreds of hours of dialogue, it's not just possible, it's unsurprising.  In fact, it would be shocking if there weren't.  Remember, the circuits were voice-activated, not button-operated, so a mistake is as easy as talking.

Or they simply didn't have strict signaling protocols because they were on full duplex radios and could rely on quindar tones whenever efficiency was paramount.

Or there were simply blocks of time where none of those things were all that important, like in the container recording when they're just sorting things around them.  Not exactly a tense moment.  Thinking about the mission timeline, I'd actually expect this to be most of the time.  The astronauts were highly autonomous.  Other than when actually piloting the capsules, landing, taking off, burns, maneuvers, etc, I'm struggling to think of why it would be so important to them to not interrupt one another.  And, I can think of a good reason not to: time.  It's one of their most limited resources, and it makes sense to me that one would be willing to forgo efficiency in favor of rate.  Efficiency simply wasn't always paramount.

Quote
But why speak in generalities?  Let's talk about the last clip that I posted, the one about the containers.  Tell me why you think it isn't possible or plausible that, in my final clip, Cernan or Schmitt or whomever it was couldn't have been responding to the first sentence that came from Houston?  I understand Houston to be stating that SCB-3 with the Rover samples in it is on the Rover.  Cernan/Schmitt corrects him.  How is that illogical or impossible or implausible?
As Tom pointed out, in this scenario there is a message that's being outright ignored. That seems highly unlikely. Tom's explanation, in which all questions are answered is simply more consistent with the flow of conversation, and the only address it's received so far is "if you insist."

I dunno what else I can say to him if he's merely going to insist that "If you have any, yeah, some of those today" is a question.  I don't buy it, I don't think he's asking a question, and I think he's merely finishing his thought.  You merely insist that it's highly unlikely that Cernan would ignore a message.  That's just an argument from personal incredulity.  You both ignore the most important factor, that you can hear the the echo of Houston interrupting Cernan in the delayed transmission.  You can hear these echos in all of them.

I understand Houston to be stating that SCB-3 with the Rover samples in it is on the Rover.  Cernan/Schmitt corrects him mid-sentence, either because he was in a hurry, or because he made a mistake for any number of reasons, or because he just didn't think it was a big deal to interrupt Houston (maybe he was in a bad mood), or because Parker fucked Cernan's wife and Cernan hates that little shit, or because pick any number of perfectly reasonable explanations.  How is that illogical or impossible or implausible?

1417
Flat Earth Community / Re: No Transmission Delays to the Moon
« on: February 27, 2015, 12:22:24 AM »
PP, I take the crux of your argument to be that Apollo-Houston communications would never be disordered both because they would follow strict protocols, and because efficiency of communication is of paramount importance.  Is this correct?

I merely disagree with your assertion that this must always be true.  It probably was true quite often.  I imagine that there were plenty of times when it was vitally important that strict communication protocols were required.  But, that doesn't preclude or diminish the plausibility of there being half a dozen 10-second moments among the literally hundreds of hours of recorded communications when Apollo and Houston spoke more casually.

Recall that Apollo radios worked like cell phones do today.  Their operations were identical: voice-activated circuits with full duplex operation.  The astronauts were basically on a phone call for 200 consecutive hours.  That there would be moments among those 200 hours where the astronauts spoke on their radios in the manner in which we speak on our voice-activated, full duplex radios today is hardly implausible.  To me, anyway.

That, by the way, is why I drew the analogy to face-to-face conversation.  Apollo radios work like cell phones.  Cell phones are voice-activated, full duplex radios that emulate face-to-face conversation.  People have disorderly conversations on cell phones all the time, even under ideal conditions.  I don't see what the big problem is with my analogy.  I don't really get how that's so incredibly absurd that you would accuse me of being dishonest or whatever it is you were trying to say.  Lighten up.

Also what RS said.  Regardless of medium, humans communication is often disorderly, even when trying not to be, and even under ideal conditions.  It's not hard for me to imagine that, even if everyone was trying to adhere strictly to protocol for the duration of the, again, nearly 200-hour-long mission, then there would still be accidents and lapses and mistakes every now and again.

But why speak in generalities?  Let's talk about the last clip that I posted, the one about the containers.  Tell me why you think it isn't possible or plausible that, in my final clip, Cernan or Schmitt or whomever it was couldn't have been responding to the first sentence that came from Houston?  I understand Houston to be stating that SCB-3 with the Rover samples in it is on the Rover.  Cernan/Schmitt corrects him.  How is that illogical or impossible or implausible?

1418
Flat Earth Community / Re: No Transmission Delays to the Moon
« on: February 26, 2015, 04:29:01 PM »
"If you have any, yeah, some of those today" is the question.

If you insist.

Interruption, confusion, and talking-over are regular features of face-to-face conversations, let alone a conversation with people who are on the Moon.
Face-to-face conversation is entirely irrelevant here. Communication over walkie-talkies is much more applicable. Over.

My point was that disorder (especially interruptions) is a regular feature of communication even under ideal conditions.  I expect disorder to be a regular feature of communication with people on the moon. 

The clips provided by the OP are evidence of 'FTL' communication only if one accepts the unreasonable assumption that such disorder could never occur.  I'm saying not only that it could occur, but also that it would.  A lot.  And that the clips I made are actually excellent evidence of that happening.

1419
Flat Earth Community / Re: No Transmission Delays to the Moon
« on: February 26, 2015, 04:42:34 AM »
Except your bastardization cut out the question the astro-not was replying to. Right after that part where you cut off huston, huston asks a question, to which the answer is immediately "No".

If you insist.  I don't hear a question in the unedited audio clip, and neither does the NASA transcript:
    169:27:43 Parker: ...remember, I want inventories of the stuff as it comes off the Rover and where you put it over there by the footpad, so we can help you keep track of it.
    169:27:50 Schmitt: (Going to the ladder with SCB-5) Okay. We've got the big bag...ah...bag 7, bag 5, bag 4 at the footpad.
    169:28:09 Parker: Copy that. We've also got SCB-3 with the Rover samples in it on the Rover, if you have any...yeah, you have some of those today.
    169:28:15 Schmitt: No, we emptied those into 5.

I don't hear a question in the audio, I don't see one in the transcript, and it doesn't make sense to me in the context of the dialogue that Houston was asking a question.  I understand Houston to be stating that SCB-3 with the Rover samples in it is on the Rover.  Cernan/Schmitt corrects him.  How is that illogical or impossible?

As RS points out, you're just asserting without warrant that a question was asked and that Cernan/Schmitt could only have been responding to that question and not the prior statement.  You don't even make an attempt to explain why it must be the case.

1420
Flat Earth Community / Re: No Transmission Delays to the Moon
« on: February 26, 2015, 02:57:07 AM »
Did you watch the video?

Is that a joke?

At the beginning of the first video the author criticizes that NASA has been going through the videos hosted on their site and adding in pauses where none previously existed. That is why the audio the author is playing is different than the audio on NASA's website.

He merely asserts that without any sources, citations, or warrants.  Perhaps that's good enough for you, but I'm skeptical.  I've already demonstrated that we ought not take him at his word.

But they missed this one: Download this clip (129MB) https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1692526.mpg

Listen to the last 15 seconds of that clip. Schmitt says "No, we emptied those into 5" immediately after Huston asks the question.

A negative answer of "No" cannot be given until the question is asked. How did the astronaut know what Huston was going to ask before they asked it? If the audio was being recorded at mission control there should have been a pause of at least 2.5 seconds before we hear the astronaut's reply.

Expect to see this video edited in the next couple of years. NASA likes to let the sensation die down and then go back and edit their mistakes (ie. the "C" rock).

Tom, you are a beautiful, beautiful snowflake.

As I mentioned already, these arguments rest entirely on the unwarranted and unreasonable assumption that the astronaut will always wait to speak until Houston has finished speaking entirely.  I see no reason why this should be true.  Interruption, confusion, and talking-over are regular features of face-to-face conversations, let alone a conversation with people who are on the Moon.

Without this assumption, the audio sounds exactly as we should expect it to.  I took the NASA audio and made this clip. 



I'm getting better at the diagrams, no?  As you can see, there's plenty of time between the end of Houston's first sentence and the beginning of Cernan's response.  Cernan started to speak when he heard the end of the first sentence.  Then as he spoke he heard more words coming from Houston and stopped speaking to hear them before finally completing his sentence.  The exchange is confused because of the communication delay.  Once again you can even hear the echos from Houston interrupting him! 

To find out if that actually makes sense, I silenced the audio for the 2.5 seconds preceding Cernan's response, producing this clip.  I don't hear anything 'impossible' about this exchange.  Houston tells Cernan that container 3 has lunar samples in it on the rover.  Cernan responds that they were already emptied into container 5.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 69 70 [71] 72 73 ... 80  Next >