Evan Burton
-
Posts
4,419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Evan Burton
-
-
Correct John.
If someone were to say to me "You support this because you are right-wing and pro-military; you are biased on this topic!" then I would have no problems, even if I were not right-wing, etc.
When people accuse me of being a paid disinformation agent, acting on orders of my superiors, etc, then I strongly object.
-
My own opinion is that the rule should remain. To me, it doesn't matter what the motivations of a poster are. If I disagree with what they say, I'll say why I disagree. If I believe they are posting inaccurate or misleading data, then I'll demonstrate why the posts are inaccurate or misleading. Who posts the statements is mostly irrelevant, in my opinion. To me, calling some as a "disinfo agent" or "agent provocateur" simply means you are unable to counter to other person's argument.
-
My own opinion is that the rule should remain. To me, it doesn't matter what the motivations of a poster are. If I disagree with what they say, I'll say why I disagree. If I believe they are posting inaccurate or misleading data, then I'll demonstrate why the posts are inaccurate or misleading. Who posts the statements is mostly irrelevant, in my opinion. To me, calling some as a "disinfo agent" or "agent provocateur" simply means you are unable to counter to other person's argument.
-
There has been some discussion regarding Rule (iv) of the forum rules of behaviour. It has been suggested that the motivations of a poster should be able to be questioned. Part of Rule (iv) currently forbids this.
What is your opinion? Should you be able to question why a poster makes the posts they do, why they hold those opinions?
Please note this is NOT an "official" rule change vote; it is simply a vehicle to allow the board owners to know the opinions of forum members.
The poll / discussion will also be repeated on the JFK section of the board. You might have one opinion on one section of the board, and a different opinion for a different section of the board. Please use the respective sections to make your opinions known.
Thank you!
-
There has been some discussion regarding Rule (iv) of the forum rules of behaviour. It has been suggested that the motivations of a poster should be able to be questioned. Part of Rule (iv) currently forbids this.
What is your opinion? Should you be able to question why a poster makes the posts they do, why they hold those opinions?
Please note this is NOT an "official" rule change vote; it is simply a vehicle to allow the board owners to know the opinions of forum members.
The poll / discussion will also be repeated on the Political Conspiracy section of the board. You might have one opinion on one section of the board, and a different opinion for a different section of the board. Please use the respective sections to make your opinions known.
Thank you!
-
Don't change the subject, Jack. Dave has you cornered; deal with the topic at hand.
-
Apart from being an obviously faked image, and apart from the EMU LEVA design being incorrect, what is so strange about astronauts practising EVA? It's only been happening since the programme began and strangely enough, hundreds of images showing that practice are available from various sources:
etc,
etc,
etc
-
And the fact that Jack already asked that question on this forum, and failed to acknowledge the answers.
Typical Jack tactic: make baseless claims, ignore replies, slink away when proven woefully wrong, wait a while reintroduce same thing, ignore replies, slink away, etc, etc.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13784
Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh there; perhaps Jack's memory isn't what it used to be?
-
Are you going to answer this Jack?
-
How should science respond to this public fear of evolution?
Miller: Science can respond in three ways:
1. The first is by answering the objections that are frequently raised against evolution. The charge that evolution is not good science—that there are no transitional forms, that the mechanism of evolution doesn’t work, and other similar charges—can easily be answered from scientific literature.
2. The second is by emphasizing the fact that scientific ideas are different from religious ideas and therefore that science in general, and evolution in particular, does not present an obligatory threat to religion.
3. The last way to respond is simply by doing good science. Evolutionary biology is fundamentally a useful theory. It’s a theory whose application and practice in the laboratory every single day yields useful scientific results. The American people are a people of practical results and consequences. When something works, when something is practical, when something earns money, it gets respect in American society, and evolution can do all of those things.
In some regions of the U.S., educators are being encouraged, sometimes forced, by their institution to teach “alternative” ideas to evolution. What is your response to this development?
Miller: Disappointment. If the ideas being offered were genuinely scientific alternatives, if they were ideas that had significant support within the scientific community or substantial experimental evidence, it might be interesting to include them in the science classroom.
Unfortunately, the “alternatives” actually being offered are not scientific at all. The insertion of an idea such as young-earth creationism, which requires a rejection of astronomy, physics, and chemistry as well as biology, into the scientific curriculum makes about as much sense as teaching witchcraft in medical school. The other alternative often proposed, so-called “intelligent” design, doesn’t even rise to the level of being a scientific hypothesis. It has no explanatory power and approaches scientific problems by nothing more than an appeal to the “designer.” Since such appeals are not testable, they don’t amount to science and can only mislead students as to the nature of science and scientific evidence.
Kenneth T. Miller, Ph.D., a Christian and evolutionist, is professor of biology in the Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology, and Biochemistry at Brown University, in Providence, RI. His research delves into problems of structure and function in biological membranes using a variety of techniques associated with electron microscopy. One of his principal interests is the public understanding of evolution. He has written a number of articles defending the scientific integrity of evolution, answering challenges such as that posed by intelligent design, and has publicly debated anti-evolutionists. He has written a series of high school and college textbooks with Joseph S. Levine, calledBiology, the most recent of which is known as the “Dragonfly” book (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2002); he also wrote Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution (HarperCollins, 1999). Miller was interviewed at the AIBS Symposium “Evolutionary Science and Society: Educating a New Generation” at the 2004 NABT convention.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/miller.html
*********************
A Position Statement of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada - Ottawa Centre on Science & Evolution
Approved by RASC Ottawa Centre Council, April 26, 2007
The RASC Ottawa Centre supports high standards of scientific integrity, academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also respects the scientific method and recognizes that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypotheses, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The RASC Ottawa Centre, then, is unequivocal in its support of contemporary evolutionary theory that has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been refined by findings accumulated over 140 years.
Some dissenters from this position are proponents of non-scientific explanations of the nature of the universe. These may include “creation science”, “creationism”, “intelligent design” or other non-scientific “alternatives to evolution”. While we respect the dissenters’ right to express their views, these views are theirs alone and are in no way endorsed by the RASC Ottawa Centre. It is our collective position that these explanations do not meet the characteristics and rigour of scientific empiricism.
Therefore the science agenda of the RASC Ottawa Centre and its publications will not promote any non-scientific explanations of the nature of the universe.
http://ottawa-rasc.ca/science/index.html
**************************
Science and Evolution
According to the National Science Board's 2002 study Science and Engineering Indicators, only one-third of Americans can adequately explain what it means to study something scientifically. As a nation, we are easy prey for those promoting pseudoscientific claims, and the National Science Board survey blames education and the media for this.
Elementary teachers spend significantly less time on science and social studies than on math and literacy activities (Pianta et al 2007). In a study of Science Education in Bay Area Elementary Schools, 22% of K-2 teachers and 10% of 3-5 teachers do not cover science at all and 59% feel under-prepared to teach science.
It is no wonder U.S. public acceptance of evolution is so low compared to other countries (Miller et al. 2006). Clearly one reason evolution is so easily rejected is because people are scientifically ill-informed. Hence, an excellent place to start is educating students about the nature of science, and more specifically, how to differentiate between science and non-science, pseudoscience and even bad science.
http://ncseweb.org/evolution/education/science-evolution
***********************
Within the scientific community and academia the level of support for evolution is essentially universal, while support for biblically-literal accounts or other creationist alternatives is very small among scientists, and virtually nonexistent among those in the relevant fields.
-
Evan,
You may not know that Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, is Australian. Could you please take him back?
Nope. He's yours now; you have to keep him!
-
Okay,
Re the first claim - it could well be true. The Kiwis also have good claims to have beaten the Wright Brothers:
http://www.billzilla.org/pearce.htm
Now, the 'lost tapes'. A lot of the tapes are telemetry, but there are hopes that some are from the Slow Scan TV (SSTV). The SSTV was the 'original' broadcast but because of the format (number of lines and the scan rate), they had to be converted for transmission via regular television. This conversion process reduced the clarity of the video. The following has examples of the clarity of the different formats, and gives a good technical explanation if interested:
http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/tapes/index.html
If the tapes are found, are they still usable? That's a big unknown. There are several factors, but the most important is how the tapes have been stored. If the boxes containing the tapes have been stored in poor conditions, the tapes may well be unusable. Even if stored in controlled conditions, some degradation may have taken place. The tapes store their information through magnetic encoding, just like a VCR video tape. These days we have DVDs, but some of us have VCR tapes in the cupboard. I have tapes I haven't played in 10 or more years. The magnetic properties can 'leach' through to the adjacent tape when not played for years. Experts recommend that tapes are played or fast forwarded and rewound at least once a year.
Even so, we may still have excellent quality tapes... if we have a machine that can play them. What happens if you have a Betamax tape but only a VHS player? Can you just put the Betamax tape into a VHS cassette and play it? Nope, they are the same size but they are different formats (the data encoding process) and the VHS machine won't play the Betamax tape.
So we might get the tapes but there is only one machine left that can play them... and that is being decommissioned by NASA. Or is it? I know that a request had been made to place the machine into preservation storage, so it could be used if the tapes were found. I'm unsure if this happened, but I'll check when I meet up with the guys from Honeysuckle Creek during the Apollo 40th Celebrations; they were the people who were there and they have been leading the search for the tapes, etc.
Lastly, as reported the Express article is incorrect. I have been told to expect an announcement soon regarding the discovery of improved quality pictures of the Apollo 11 moonwalk.
Lastly, the overall point made by Tom is correct: don't just accept being told something; research the matter yourself. Check sources, etc. Satisfy yourself as to the veracity of statements being made. Where you do not have sufficient technical knowledge to properly evaluate claims, go to sources of education such as universities, etc. Ask the people who are qualified as to their opinion.... but don't just take one opinion. That is like reading just one media source. Ask as many qualified people as you can. If they all agree, then you can have some confidence in their opinions. If they disagree, then you'll need to investigate why they disagree.
-
It's quite amazing, though these people are not typical of their faiths. There are many scientists with strong religious beliefs, and they do not see any conflict with science and religion, and they do not have any problems with evolution, etc.
-
If Jack doesn't mind it being discussed here, then that is fine... but I'd recommend a thread title change so people know the subject we are discussing: a rule change, specifically motivations of posters. The current thread title doesn't let other posters know that.
-
Tom,
I'm off to work but I'll address your points later. The last one from the Express, about the tapes being found, is wrong. There will be an announcement within a couple of weeks saying what has really happened.
-
You know, there is truth in that. There are so many easily disprovable "conspiracy theories" - such as 'the Moon landings were faked' - that is DOES distract from more mundane but very real conspiracies. I would prefer if people with excellent research skills spent their time finding the real coverups - such as pay rorts, expenses, illegal dealings, dodgy contracts, etc - instead of distracting discussion away on fringe stuff. Still, that's just my opinion.
-
['Evan Burton' date=Jul 2 2009, 04:27 AM' post='169133]
['John Simkin' post=169125' date='Jul 2 2009, 07:10 PM]
me detects a softball game, here? LMAO!
Right, David. Remember the "conversations" between "Bill Miller" and "Larry Peters"?Jack
Really?
To my knowledge, John Simkin has never shown a particular interest in Apollo claims, but has always demonstrated an eclectic interest and subsequent reporting.
I, on the other hand, am known for my particular interest and (if I may blow my own horn) expertise in this subject.
So John posts a subject on which I am interested, and I reply.
What a surprise!
-
If what people say is false, they why can't other refute it? Instead they have to attack the poster, not the post.
Anyway - if you think the rule needs changing Peter, then start a thread and let's get a discussion on the matter going. When people have had their say, John & Andy can consider changing the rules. Until that time, however, the rules applies to everyone.
knock-knock.... Hi Evan.... "When people have had their say...", ah, isn't this about procedure, etc? What is this conversation doing in the middle of 'Me and my shadows' thread? Some thread stealing going on here, Evan?
And here's a bit of news for you, I suspect the number of posts to this board during the past few months is going down (by as much as 30%), certainly the number of active CT posters 'posting' here is going down. Thread views I suspect the same -- down... no new members... That cuts website revenue..... Which means THE rules aren't making for *happy campers* -- which in turn means, old hands are moving on to more, er, confrontational places?
Never fear though... the graveyard of JFK assassination related websites, is vast...
Moderate on.....
I'm suggesting that discussion on motivations and that rule be on a thread dedicated to that topic, where people can make their opinions know. Since Peter suggested a rule change might be warranted, he would be the logical choice to start the thread with his argument.
-
Peter,
Then I suggest you do it. We have posts / threads dealing with the same subject all over the place. I am more than happy to leave it in your hands, but I think it needs to be done. Perhaps you'd like to suggest a new topic list?
As always, no posts will be deleted; it's just they be placed in an area where you can find the resources you need.
If Members can except me as neutral, then I will volunteer to complete this. For the record, I don't believe that the Towers were brought down by anything other than airplane strikes, nor do I believe that the Pentagon was struc by anything other than a passenger jet. i do not believe, however, that we know anything like the deep truth behind these attacks, or the Wars, and curbs on civil rights that they led to.
I'm happy for Stephen to do this.
Stephen, if you want me to help in any way, just ask.
-
The missing flame
Claim: There was no exhaust flame from the lunar module when it blasted back off the moon. Therefore, it was a model pulled up on a wire.
Why it's nonsense: The Saturn V rocket burnt liquid oxygen and kerosene on blast-off, which provides a fiery plume. The lunar lander ran on nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine 50, which doesn't. Its exhaust gases were transparent.
Yep. These are called hypergolic fuels; they burn on contact with each other. You can see part of the flame, though, on the Apollo 17 LM lift-off video. As the camera nears maximum tilt, you are looking straight up the exhaust nozzle, and you can see the light of the fuels burning.
The absent starsClaim: Space is full of stars, so why do they not appear in photographs taken on the moon?
Why it's nonsense: The astronauts took pictures of brightly lit, shiny white objects. In these conditions, cameras need a fast exposure time and small aperture, making it impossible to capture faint background objects. Guardian photographer Graeme Robertson says: "They would have used a really fast shutter speed so everything in the background would just be black."
Not quite. Because the sky in the lunar pictures is black, we tend to think it was "dark". Not true; think about it: the Moon was in sunlight, the same sunlight that shines down on the Earth. Because there is no atmosphere on the Moon, the sky appears "dark" but it was as bright as daylight on the Earth. Now the explanation about exposure and aperture and shutter speed makes sense. Can you take a photo during the day on Earth and see stars? Even so, astronauts could move into a shadowed area, let their eyes adjust to the reduced light, and see stars in the sky.
The faked footprintClaim: The famous footprints on the lunar surface needed water to form. Otherwise they would settle out, as they do in dry sand.
Why it's nonsense: Moon dust is a different size and shape from sand and doesn't need moisture to hold a compressed shape. Many powders on Earth can behave in the same way. Walk in spilt talcum powder and see.
See the Mythbusters ep to demonstrate why this is correct.
The coke bottleClaim: An Australian lady, known as Una Ronald, claimed to have seen a Coke bottle kicked across the moon during the Apollo 11 landing. It must have been filmed in a studio.
Why it's nonsense: Where to start? Una, if she exists, saw something that the rest of the watching world missed, and of which zero evidence survives. Hardly likely to be the real thing.
Not a good explanation.
Una Ronald claims to have “stayed up late” to watch the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moonwalk when living in or near Perth, Western Australia. She was amazed to see a “coke bottle” kicked across the lunar surface. This object was only seen during the live broadcast and was removed from replays in the days following. She also claims to have seen, about 7 to 10 days later, several letters mentioning the same thing in her local paper (The West Australian).
This claim has many irregularities, and researchers have discovered what might be an explanation. To begin, it is claimed that she “stayed up” to watch the live broadcast. This might have been the case in the United States, but it was not in Perth. The first step onto the Moon occurred at 2.56am on 21 July 1969 – Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). Perth is 8 hours ahead of GMT, so it occurred at 10.56am in Perth. That’s in the morning. The moonwalk video was actually received by ground stations in the eastern states before being transmitted to Perth (see http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/index.html for more details).
The claim regarding the newspaper reports are also incorrect. For at least two weeks following the broadcast, there were no articles or letters regarding sightings of a “coke bottle” in either The West Australian or the Daily News, the only two daily newspapers in Perth at the time. I have personally checked this, and any interested party can examine copies of the various editions of the papers on microfiche at the Batte library (State Reference Library) in Perth.
What Una Ronald probably saw was a reflection of Buzz Aldrin’s visor, reflected inside the television camera lens. This effect is known as catadioptrism, or “ghosting”.
A full explanation, with images from Apollo 11 demonstrating the effect, can be found here:
http://www.clavius.org/cokebottle.html
The rock propClaim: A moon rock photographed on the later Apollo 16's mission is marked with a "C". It's a prop and shows the whole thing was staged.
Why it's nonsense: The C doesn't appear in the original Nasa negatives or prints. Under close magnification, it looks like a hair or fibre that has contaminated a later reproduction.
Correct. See here:
http://www.clavius.org/rover1.html
The Hubble cover-upClaim: Nasa could end all the moon conspiracy claims by using the Hubble space telescope to take pictures of the equipment left behind.
Why it's nonsense: While Hubble has sent back astonishing images - galaxies, supernovae and nebulae - they are all very, very big. The largest piece of man-made rubbish on the moon is the descent stage of the Eagle lander, about 10m across. That's just too small for Hubble to see.
As they said. The smallest detail on the Moon that the Hubble telescope can resolve is about 300 feet wide. The smallest detail in a distant galaxy that the Hubble telescope can resolve is many times larger than our whole solar system, but since galaxies are so large, that amount of detail still makes an interesting picture. Just like you can take a clear snapshot of a distant mountain range showing plenty of detail but a picture of an ant from 10 feet away shows only a little dot with no detail at all. The smallest detail on the distant mountain might be a large tree that barely shows as a small fuzzy dot in the photo, but as a small detail on a mountain it is important and interesting. Still, some orbiting satellites have shown the Apollo 15 site and you can make out the exhaust plume from the liftoff. Future satellites may also show the sites.
To be honest, the best evidence will be when we return to the Moon and show the sites as they are today. Even so, you know that the deniers will claim that either the images are faked or the artifacts found were "planted".
-
The Guardian published an article today on Apollo 11. Any comments?The fluttering flag
Claim: The planted US flag waves in the wind, which is impossible without an atmosphere.
Why it's nonsense: The flag doesn't move in any of the videos except when touched by Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin. But then the lack of atmosphere and friction stops it settling quickly, as it would on Earth. "If it moved it would have kept moving. No wind is needed," says Doug Millard at the Science Museum in London.
Correct. Have a look at the Mythbusters episode where they test this. Also, review the times the flag moves in the Apollo 11 footage. You'll see that it moves only when the flagpole has been twisted into the lunar surface.
The shifty shadowsClaim: Pictures show shadows cast by objects on the surface at different angles. There must have been multiple light sources, such as in a TV studio.
Why it's nonsense: A low sun and uneven surface can distort the angles of shadows in images. But if there were multiple light sources, why does each object cast only one shadow? "The moon is an alien place and people who raise these questions simply aren't in a position to comment about what we should expect there," Millard says. "Only 12 guys have been there and know this stuff for real."
Once again, the Mythbusters show that this is an effect from the terrain. Also see:
http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html
http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html
http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html
The phantom photographersClaim: Images taken of astronauts arriving on the moon and blasting off again would need someone else there with a camera.
Why it's nonsense: Armstrong's small step was shot by a camera mounted on the outside of the Eagle lander. Still photos of his arrival taken from further away are actually of Aldrin, snapped by Armstrong. Remote cameras left on the moon could easily track departures.
Correct. The camera was mounted on what was called the MESA - the Modularised Equipment Stowage Assembly. You can see it here:
The missions with the Lunar Rover had a camera on it which could be remotely controlled from Earth, and could film the LM lift-off. These were Apollos 15 to 17. The first two didn't show the lift off very well, because the controller on earth (a guy called Ed Fendell, known as Captain Video) had to try and judge the lag in comms, and estimate how fast the camera needed to be tilted up. He got it right on Apollo 17.
The killer radiationClaim: Apollo astronauts could not have travelled to the moon as a giant belt of lethal space radiation would have frazzled them.
Why it's nonsense: These so called Van Allen belts, where the Earth's magnetic field collects solar radiation, would be dangerous only if people were to hang out there for several days. The astronauts whizzed through in a matter of hours, and received a radiation dose similar to an X-ray. "You can pass through quite safely as long as you don't linger too long," Millard says.
Correct again. Even Dr James Van Allen - the man who discovered the belts and after whom they are named - disputes this. People also claim that the dosages were hidden, etc. You can hear the astronauts read out their dosimeter reading during the flight; read the air-ground transcript. You can also see the dosages Apollo astronauts received by looking through various post-flight medical reports and debriefings.
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11trans.html
(more to follow)
-
If what people say is false, they why can't other refute it? Instead they have to attack the poster, not the post.
Anyway - if you think the rule needs changing Peter, then start a thread and let's get a discussion on the matter going. When people have had their say, John & Andy can consider changing the rules. Until that time, however, the rules applies to everyone.
-
Peter,
Perhaps a new thread on that subject is called for. A mirror thread in the JFK section is probably warranted.
-
Of course conversions can be made - and very precise ones too. In fact, most scientists in the USA use and train in the metric system for virtually all their work, but since the society at large is using the 'silly system' it is always possible somewhere someone can enter in a silly system number and the others will assume it is metric and cause confusion to catastrophe! There was a Bill to change America to the metirc system and Reagan stopped it just before it was to take effect - for [he said] reaons of the economy. No one in the USA has seriously brought it up again...sadly.
Institutional - or societal - inertia. I saw in Arizona that they were introducing speed limit signs / distance signs in metric; I appreciated this.
Do you think that it would be possible to introduce some type of economic imperative? Could a refusal by extra-national suppliers to provide "imperial" goods force the US to make the change, or would it spur "isolationism production"?
JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Evan Burton
Spelling correction
Then it should be easy to prove what the person has said is wrong. If it is simple doubt, then counter the doubt with evidence.
Then it will be apparent, and readers can decide for themselves if what they say has any weight. Once again, counter their arguments with facts; demonstrate that they cannot muster any real evidence and are force to resort to 'character assassination'.
What about in the exact opposite case, where someone makes claims and then refuses to discuss the counter-claims, making it impossible to get to the truth of the matter? Someone who has a clear pattern of behaviour like this? A 'hit & run' poster, for instance?
If their points are flawed or wrong, why is it undesirable to point it out? To question it? If someone is acting - unfairly - as an obstacle, then that person should have the offending post reported and let the moderators decide if any action is required.
I disagree. If people are violating Forum rules, then they should be reported. If they are not violating rules, then it is up to the reader to decide whose arguments carry the most weight, to determine the veracity of various statements. WHO makes the statements is almost irrelevant.
I'll attack what the poster says, if I disagree with them. Attacking the person is a sign of inability to counter an argument, and that's what questioning a poster's motives is... especially when no proof as to the motives can be produced. It is, in some cases, simply slandering the poster. Would it be acceptable for me to question your motives, why you hold your views? Would it be acceptable for me to suggest you were being paid to advance certain ideas or views? Would it be right for me to proffer the idea that you stand up for the ideas you do because you are acting under instructions to do so?
NO. It is not.
Then negate that by raising those topics and MAKING them discuss that topic! They'll hate it.
Information may be right , wrong, or sufficiently indeterminate that it is up to the reader - not me, not you - to decide if it is of value. If there are ad homs, report the post. If the information is unsubstantial, then demonstrate that by pointing out the flaws in the information, showing where it is wrong.
Those people, IMO, hold similar views and far from wanting a wide discussion on topics, wish to stifle any contrasting posts on topics; the last thing they want is divergent opinions. Notice how homogenous all the posts are on one forum which several members have chosen to go to? I think you'd find it difficult to show any differing opinion on that particular forum.