|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 23, 2019 2:50:50 GMT
My opinion? I never gave any opinion, you spoke about the practical use of the space program and heavily implied that the only contribution was orange juice, I responded with a huge list of the contributions that the space program has made. I have not made any statements of opinion, I have provided facts. Is there an opinion of mine you would like to ask about? Hint: Things are not "facts" simply because you believe they are, or anyone else believes they are. So it's not a fact that satellites were developed by the space program?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2019 2:51:21 GMT
It's constantly amusing to me that some people understand that their religious beliefs are so ridiculous, and so unlikely to be true, that they literally have to pretend that much of history and the world is make-believe in order to prop up their faith.
Sad. Such people truly are the great losers of the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Dec 23, 2019 2:55:12 GMT
There was a time when Wikipedia was considered not a quotable source for scholars.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 23, 2019 2:57:25 GMT
Hint: Things are not "facts" simply because you believe they are, or anyone else believes they are. So it's not a fact that satellites were developed by the space program? Arlon10 just wiped the floor with goz and gadreel. Are you sure you want to mix it up with him?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 23, 2019 2:58:45 GMT
It's constantly amusing to me that some people understand that their religious beliefs are so ridiculous, and so unlikely to be true, that they literally have to pretend that much of history and the world is make-believe in order to prop up their faith. Sad. Such people truly are the great losers of the world. Thanks for sharing that. Now here's your video.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 23, 2019 3:06:07 GMT
So it's not a fact that satellites were developed by the space program? Arlon10 just wiped the floor with goz and gadreel. Are you sure you want to mix it up with him?  Arlon couldn't wipe the floor with a mop. Tell him to get back to me when he can figure out how to solve the alternative Monty Hall problems without Bayes' Theorem, or how to figure out the Passenger/Plane problem, because he just runs away when people prove him wrong and he's backed into a corner; not unlike you did when I challenged you about how your OP video's claims violates pretty much every basic/fundamental of how video production works and makes zero sense the way they attempted to explain it. Now he's trying to wiggle out of having said the space program didn't invent anything useful but Tang when gadreel mentioned satellites. As far as I can tell, he's trying to claim they don't count because they're useful on Earth... which of course wasn't his original claim.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 23, 2019 3:09:29 GMT
Arlon10 just wiped the floor with goz and gadreel. Are you sure you want to mix it up with him? Arlon couldn't wipe the floor with a mop. Tell him to get back to me when he can figure out how to solve the alternative Monty Hall problems without Bayes' Theorem, or how to figure out the Passenger/Plane problem, because he just runs away when people prove him wrong and he's backed into a corner; not unlike you did when I challenged you about how your OP video's claims violates pretty much every basic/fundamental of how video production works and makes zero sense the way they attempted to explain it. Now he's trying to wiggle out of having said the space program didn't invent anything useful but Tang when gadreel mentioned satellites. As far as I can tell, he's trying to claim they don't count because they're useful on Earth... which of course wasn't his original claim. There were other things besides Tang. Aluminum foil for example.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2019 3:12:36 GMT
It's constantly amusing to me that some people understand that their religious beliefs are so ridiculous, and so unlikely to be true, that they literally have to pretend that much of history and the world is make-believe in order to prop up their faith. Sad. Such people truly are the great losers of the world. Thanks for sharing that. Now here's your video. Already seen it, thanks, numerous times. Isn't it nice when you can have actual real people who do real-life admirable things to look up to? So much better than relying on imaginary friends.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 23, 2019 3:15:39 GMT
There was a time when Wikipedia was considered not a quotable source for scholars. Wikipedia itself is mostly a compendium of authoritative (ie, quotable) sources. For most every claim made there is a footnote linking to the source, most of which are legitimate on serious/technical subjects. As long as the Wikipedia article is well-sourced, it's every bit as reliable as any Encyclopedia is, and this was proven years ago in a study by Nature. In fact, there's a whole page on Wikipedia about Wikipedia's reliability. Again, you don't have to take anything you read there at face value, just use it to access the sources: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Comparative_studies
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 23, 2019 3:16:21 GMT
Thanks for sharing that. Now here's your video. Already seen it, thanks, numerous times. Isn't it nice when you can have actual real people who do real-life admirable things to look up to? So much better than relying on imaginary friends. I'll let you know if I ever see it. I'm getting tired of CGI, and any moron can hang from a harness in front of a greenscreen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2019 3:19:47 GMT
Already seen it, thanks, numerous times. Isn't it nice when you can have actual real people who do real-life admirable things to look up to? So much better than relying on imaginary friends. I'll let you know if I ever see it. I'm getting tired of CGI, and any moron can hang from a harness in front of a greenscreen. Yeah, I didn't like The Last Jedi much either. But real space and real space travel? That's awesome. And delusional nutcases denying it doesn't actually make it any less so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 23, 2019 3:26:02 GMT
Already seen it, thanks, numerous times. Isn't it nice when you can have actual real people who do real-life admirable things to look up to? So much better than relying on imaginary friends. I'm getting tired of CGI, and any moron can hang from a harness in front of a greenscreen. Amazing how they were doing that in 1969, decades before greenscreen was a thing!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 23, 2019 3:32:29 GMT
I'm getting tired of CGI, and any moron can hang from a harness in front of a greenscreen. Amazing how they were doing that in 1969, decades before greenscreen was a thing! If you're referring to the moon walks, that was easily accomplished by slowing down the video to half speed.
|
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Dec 23, 2019 3:46:20 GMT
There was a time when Wikipedia was considered not a quotable source for scholars. Wikipedia itself is mostly a compendium of authoritative (ie, quotable) sources. For most every claim made there is a footnote linking to the source, most of which are legitimate on serious/technical subjects. As long as the Wikipedia article is well-sourced, it's every bit as reliable as any Encyclopedia is, and this was proven years ago in a study by Nature. In fact, there's a whole page on Wikipedia about Wikipedia's reliability. Again, you don't have to take anything you read there at face value, just use it to access the sources: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Comparative_studies It is not acceptable as a source by some scholars. Take it up with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 23, 2019 4:14:37 GMT
Amazing how they were doing that in 1969, decades before greenscreen was a thing! If you're referring to the moon walks, that was easily accomplished by slowing down the video to half speed. Yeah, no. All the conspiracy arguments have been definitively debunked by everyone from Mythbusters to Adam Conover. Of course, I know such proof convinces none of the conspiracy theorists. Can't use evidence to convince someone of something they didn't need evidence to believe to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 23, 2019 4:15:23 GMT
Wikipedia itself is mostly a compendium of authoritative (ie, quotable) sources. For most every claim made there is a footnote linking to the source, most of which are legitimate on serious/technical subjects. As long as the Wikipedia article is well-sourced, it's every bit as reliable as any Encyclopedia is, and this was proven years ago in a study by Nature. In fact, there's a whole page on Wikipedia about Wikipedia's reliability. Again, you don't have to take anything you read there at face value, just use it to access the sources: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Comparative_studiesIt is not acceptable as a source by some scholars. Take it up with them. Wikipedia's sources are acceptable by most all scholars. It's like you didn't even read what I wrote.
|
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Dec 23, 2019 4:26:17 GMT
It is not acceptable as a source by some scholars. Take it up with them. Wikipedia's sources are acceptable by most all scholars. It's like you didn't even read what I wrote.
They have dumbed down everyone. I still have my standards as they were taught to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 23, 2019 4:36:35 GMT
Wikipedia's sources are acceptable by most all scholars. It's like you didn't even read what I wrote.
They have dumbed down everyone. I still have my standards as they were taught to me. Again, it's not like you're not reading what I wrote. Wikipedia uses sources. THOSE SOURCES ARE GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE AS REFERENCES. Basically I'm trying to say that Wikipedia is a great place for getting a list of such sources, like a scholarly bibliography. As long as a Wiki article has those sources, it's also generally quite reliable (that reliability is separate from whether it's acceptable as a source in academia itself).
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 23, 2019 4:40:20 GMT
If you're referring to the moon walks, that was easily accomplished by slowing down the video to half speed. Yeah, no. All the conspiracy arguments have been definitively debunked by everyone from Mythbusters to Adam Conover. Of course, I know such proof convinces none of the conspiracy theorists. Can't use evidence to convince someone of something they didn't need evidence to believe to begin with. Starring Charles Bronson as Eva Yojimbo and Toshiro Mifune as Arlon10. Sometimes it's best to call it a draw. 
|
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Dec 23, 2019 4:41:06 GMT
Eva: You have not read what I wrote either, as wiki = encyclopedia. They were NOT accepted in my uni. days.
This "tit for tat" is all too typical of these boards and is boring!
PS... talk to yourself.
|
|
