That last bit is not true. “Dinosaur bones” are really cow bones creatively arranged to look like these mythical dinosaur creatures. So says my Sunday school teacher from back in the day.
I hate a teacher at school (got a a good feeling she was my science teacher, but cant really remember) who said the moonlanding was fake. and to make things worse there was a “documentory” on tv about how the landing was fake. This teacher went on and on about it after the show was on tv. A few people from my class went on to find facts that disproved the teacher but she would have it.
Its pain full to think there are people this daft teaching kids :smack:
I have a friend who thinks that we didn’t land on the moon SOLELY because she’s met Buzz Aldrin, and doesn’t think he’s bright enough to get there…
Could you identify this "rocket scientist"and the university for us? I want to make sure my son never goes to a school that would hire this fool.
If she really thinks the landings were faked she might not be the best judge of anyones intelligence. I mean Armstrong’s boot was on the moon, I am sure she would concede that old Buzz is at least as smart as Armstrong’s boot. That being the case, her reasoning skills leave much to be desired. Or were you just taking a cheap shot for no reason?
Seriously, what school is this? I would have been in the Dean’s office before the lunartic of a professor finished his sentence.
FYI, the Japanese moon survey should be producing high resolution pictures in December.
Won’t prove a thing. Everybody knows the Japanese have the technical expertise to produce pictures that LOOK like the surface of the moon. After all, they have the technical expertise to orbit a satellite around the moon. Hey, wait a minute…
Here’s the book at the bottom of all the nonsense. Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA.
I like reading stuff “on the edge.” Holy Blood Holy Grail was a laff riot; but too many people took that da Vinci book seriously. As far as fiction goes, I prefer the Illuminatus trilogy. Sex, drugs & humor!
The administration at that Trade School/Kollege needs to be informed they’ve got total idiot on the faculty.
People like this are a disgrace to the profession of teaching. Complain to the chair. This is unacceptable in the classroom.
Sophistry and Illusion, college professor for 9 years
You are describing Dallas, Texas.
No… this is what she claims. I’m not all that sure that she’s being truthful, though, or if she’s the one taking the cheap shot.
I worked with a fellow engineer once–bright guy, knew how to shake out all the potential flaws of a design, and I swear he must have dreamt in C-code–who believed at least the first and second moon landings (before 1970) were faked, and probably all of them were. I never discussed it much with him–it’s something he’d mention casually, and he didn’t seem interested in proselytizing–but his basic premise was that if NASA had landed, why didn’t they keep on sending people to the moon? After all, they didn’t stop the shuttle missions after the first six…
Please don’t bother answering that question–the answer is pretty obvious–and don’t for a second think I believe NASA faked the moon landings. I simply wanted to say that, in my lifetime, I’ve met at least one bright, rational person who thought it was faked and talked to him enough to know that he wasn’t being sarcastic about the position. Truthfully, I didn’t think it was worth making a tremendous deal about it; I didn’t humor him, but I also didn’t start a serious argument about it. When I reflect back, I’m glad I didn’t; I learned a lot from him in my early career, and I’m sure a lengthy argument would have soured the relationship and left his position unchanged (that’s why they call it a “conspiracy theory”; if you disagree, you must be part of the conspiracy, and can be safely ignored).
Plenty of folks here will give you sound reasons why the “fake moon landing” theory is complete bunk, but you may be wondering what to do about the professor. If he/she was espousing these views in something like an end-of-class chat (i.e. something not directly related to the subject of study) I personally would write it off and move on; stick it to him/her on the teacher evaluation if you feel the need. If it becomes a steady topic in class, and you can see tangible ways it is affecting class content, then I’d bring it to the dean.
Nice little poem there!
I LOL’d myself sick when I first saw the Buzz vs The Grand Idiot video. I would have clocked him a long time ago myself, but yanno, you can only take so much…
Tell me you’re not paying to go to this school, right?
I once examined Richard Hoagland’s claims individually about bridges, glass structures and whatnot. One thing I noticed was his images were from different sources and at different resolutions, but always, whatever he claimed to see in each was just beyond the resolution necessary to verify the claim.
So if the smallest object that could be resolved was 1 mile across, he claimed to see a half-mile wide structure and if it was 10 ft, he saw a 5-foot alien. Also, if a spot of light appeared on a solid object, he claimed that the object was either transparent or an arch, and it was transmitted light rather than reflected.
And film grain, sratches, dust and JPG artifacts became intelligently created objects that NASA didn’t want you to see.
He consistently chose the least likely explanation of anything, sort of Ockham’s Razor in reverse.
Rather telling that the only “Better Together!” choice suggested is a novel by Whitley Streiber. And that the “Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought” list includes two books by Zecharia Sitchin, a Roswell screed, and an account of the long-debunked Barney and Betty Hill UFO abduction.
I recall one non-canonical Sherlock Holmes story in which he refers to a character having “forsaken Occam’s Razor for Occam’s Kaleidoscope”.
Wasn’t “Inside the SpaceShips” by George Adamski, was it?
From one of the reviewers of the book:
Obviously, to anyone who is not deaf, dumb or blind, the pyramids and the sine of a 19.5 degree angle are significant factors in the NASA plans to dominate the world by faking rocket launches. Not to mention Ron Hubbard.
Richard Hoagland is very good at selling books. As a scientist, not so much.
The Amazon reviews for this book are hilarious. My favorite is the one-star reviewer who dismisses this book because he thinks it’s part of a godless liberal agenda to dupe the American public.