|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
Hello,
I am a High School junior attending the first year of the International Baccalaureate Organization's Diploma Programme. I am required to take an epistemological course titled "Theory of Knowledge." My teacher is a Ph.D. in Gifted Education, a M.A. in History of Ideas, and a B.A. in Philosophy. He is a hoax theorist. He's launched new arguments, that I haven't seen covered by Percy and his sycophants: the claims of background "fall-out" where the rear of the image (linked here: inset) is darkened while the foreground and face of Aldrin is illuminated. Secondly, he's began claims that there are photo composite lines between the foreground where the astronauts, the LEM, and the other objects lie, and the background hills. Thirdly, he claims that the Saturn V was not physically capable of sending men to the Moon, and that the guidance computer couldn't land the LEM. He supports this with the assertion that if the Saturn V and LEM were capable, the same booster could be used to lift a shuttle-vehicle, rather than the ground-up design of the Shuttle Transport System. From the same article containing the infamous Aldrin shot, I quote the following: Quote:
Thank you for any help, A new poster.
__________________
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." - T.H. Huxley |
|
||||
|
First off, I'm sorry your teacher is a moron. Secondly, those are some lame degrees. Gifted teaching? History of ideas? That sounds like 1 or 2 classes tops, not a whole degree. Finally, you have come to the right place. There are several people here supremely qualified to answer your questions. Sadly (for both of us
), I'm not one of them.Here is a perfect place to start, http://www.clavius.org/ Hopefully, Jay will show up soon to address your questions. Welcome to the board.
__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum, þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon, hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams |
|
|||
|
I personaly am holding out hope that your teacher is attempting to teach your class a lesson in critical thinking, by seeing how many people he can suck in with a lot of conspirasists mumbo-jumbo. As omeone who rather enjoyed the few philosophy courses he took in college, I will say that the discussion your teacher is engaging in seems fairly out of place in a course on epistemology. Many books have been writen on this subject by some great thinkers-what a waste of time it seems to go over ridiculous moon hoax theories instead of, oh I don't know, STUDYING EPISTEMOLOGY.
|
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131 |
|
|||
|
Seriously. Ask him to post here. If he's not, as has been suggested, just doing it all as an exercise. If he's not willing to post here, and he's serious, ask him why you should believe his analysis over that of for-real aerospace engineers.
Welcome to the BABB! |
|
||||
|
Quote:
http://www.space.com/news/spacehisto...ve_000313.html |
|
||||
|
Some one I know who has done extensive historical research wrote me
this response about the Apollo blueprints. Here's the response. Most people think of "blueprints" as sheets of paper with drawings on them, neatly bound in rolls ready for viewing. What people don't understand is that there was never a single neatly bound and published complete set of blueprints to the Saturn V. Indeed, if one could assemble all of the so called "blueprints" of the launch vehcile and its millions of millions of components, it would fill several warehouses. Even in the hayday of the Apollo program, no one, not even NASA had in its possession a complete set of so-called blueprints to the Saturn V. What they did have were millions of pieces of paper that documented each and every component but these were spread all over the country among the 12 NASA centers and hundreds of prime and sub contractors. Remember, at the peak of the Apollo program, NASA employed nearly a half a million people on the project. As far as I know, there was no one central depository for every piece of technical paper pertaining to the Saturn V. To say that NASA has thrown away the Saturn V blueprints is simply not true. I am sure that duplicate copies of some of the millions of technical papers documenting every component of the launch vehcile, the CSM and LM were tossed but other copies remain. I have seen many of the piles of documentation that would, in laymen's terms, constitute blueprints. But there were never "blueprints" made of the Saturn V in the traditional sense that we can identify as typical blueprints. The vehicle was simple too big and complex. I think an interesting comparison would be to try and obtain a complete set of blueprints to, say, the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy. Again, if you were to try and secure such a "set" it would fill a similar sized warehouse. Yes, you could probably get blueprints showing the side, fore and aft views but to secure a complete "set" containing every component... you an begin to see the similarity of the task. Hope this helps. |
|
||||
|
Welcome to the board, Illuminatus Primus. Congratulations on being in the International Baccalaureate program. I agree with the previous poster in that I hope your teacher is stringing you along with the intention to show how easy it is to make a persuasive case with poor information to those who have little knowledge of a subject. Whether he is or not, by questioning his line of thought you have demonstrated solid critical thinking skills.
One of the hoax believers tactics is to site various, seemingly authorities sources and tie any anomalies they find in these sources together as proof that a conspiracy exists. Sources are frequently news articles or the popular publications we read every day and typically find more or less accurate, to the best of our knowledge. A good example is the AP quote in your post. Quote:
People that string together this kind of information together to form a larger idea are not practicing good thinking. They take a journalistic conveyance of complicated events into a succinct form that captures the gist of the situation and treat it as an exhaustive portrayal of events. If the sources of an argument are vague, the conclusion is even more vague than any individual source.
__________________
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun. |
|
||||
|
This teacher sounds like a good example of an oxymoron. He's obviously an "educated idiot" if he really believes such nonsense.
I know that everyone can't be well informed in every area but this just seems ridiculous to the point of my wondering if it's some ploy to point out the need for critical/logical thinking? I agree with everyone else...ask him to post here.
__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs! |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King) |
|
||||
|
Quote:
http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/gifted/phd.html
__________________
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient." |
|
||||
|
I did a little researching on his degrees. From what I could tell there isn't a degree for gifted education. It is a education degree with emphasis on gifted education. Similarily his MA for History of Ideas is a Liberal Arts degree with emphasis on History of Ideas
Try Here and Here too From the History of Ideas description, it appears that the teacher maybe using this as a learning tool and may not accept the hoax theory. Well see. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient." |
|
||||
|
Another thing people keep missing is that we do have a vehicle with a lift capacity similar to that of the Saturn V. They call it the Space Shuttle.
Consider, for a moment, the total mass of the Apollo mission hardware, specifically, the CSM and the LM. Also, while we're at it, let's look at Skylab, too. OK, the CM alone massed 5.8 metric tons. The SM was another 24.5 tons. The LM massed 14.7 tons. Skylab tipped the scales at an impressive 76.3 tons. So, a Saturn booster could put 76.3 tons into LEO, or send 45 tons to the Moon. Impressive, isn't it? For comparison, let's look at the first and last Shuttles built, Columbia (OV-102) and Endeavour. OK, Columbia had a total mass of 104.3 metric tons, including 21.2 tons of cargo. Endeavour, meanwhile, has roughly the same maximum mass, but can carry a hair under 25 metric tons of cargo. The difference between Apollo and the STS is that the launch system for the STS has a lot more "dead weight" it has to carry up every single time. That was where Shuttle C was supposed to come in. It'd run a stripped-down, unmanned, wingless "shuttle" that was just for putting cargo into orbit. Of course, not surprisingly, it never happened. Sources: Apollo CSM Apollo LM Skylab Columbia Endeavour Shuttle C
__________________
Sleep? Isn't that that totally inadaquate substitute for caffeine I've heard so much about? Quantumfoamy.com, my astronomy/astrophotography blog. |