On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:35:05 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
Post by KualinarPost by a425coupleNASA Explore The Universe 路
Sagittarius TV 路 路
India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has captured detailed images of the Apollo
11 and Apollo 12 moon landing sites. ?
"Yes, yes, Mr. Galileo, I certainly do see the little lights off of
the shoulder of Jupiter but I've never seen them with my own unaided
eyes so they must be artefacts of your far-viewer's internals."
There are those who would refuse to accept the reality of a Lunar
landing even were we to transport them up there to allow them to touch
the lonely, little machines.
Then there are those who would never *understand* such ideas.
Post by KualinarPost by a425couple----------------------------------
When they argued in rec.aviation.military I was surprised by how much
their "evidence" revealed stubborn ignorance of simple things on Earth,
like parallel lines appearing to converge in the distance
and a full moon
obscuring nearby stars from view.
I don't see why this should be such a mystery. Our local star, Sol,
blots out just about everything else in the sky apart from Venus and
the Moon. While the Moon isn't quite so bright as Sol, she is very
much brighter than any star or planet. One would expect the moonlight
to wash out just about everything close to it in the sky, more so if
the sky is misty or cloudy as then the moonlight would get spread out
a bit more.
Post by Kualinar- nu hu
- Looks flat to me
I've never found any argument from limited experience to be
convincing. Useful, yes. I never consider the curvature of the planet
when travelling from city to nearby city or from my house to the local
shops. I do, however, very much think about the curvature of the local
topography. Hills take effort.
Post by Kualinar- We can't know that (when talking about things that we know very well)
My sister uses that one. She utterly dismisses my knowledge of things
in favour of her opinions and feelings. She likes warm woo-woo over
the cooler equations Science gives us.
I sort of pity her at times.
Post by Kualinar- It don't understand, therefore, it's false/fake.
My sister uses that one, too.
Post by Kualinar- I can't feel the movement
But "The Doctor" can so it must be real.
Post by Kualinar- We see to much
- That's what They wan us to believe
Of course it is because it is observed facts and the simplest models
conceived to explain observed facts.
Post by KualinarOften a mixture of those.
I think you forgot "Goddidit" or "Zetans did it".
Post by Kualinar------------------------------------------
I admit I was skeptical of European mayonnaise on French fries / chips /
frites, but quickly accepted it.
Mayo is a slow, cumulative poison, sort of like lead but tasting far
more vile. It is also a rather rapid emetic creating colourful
projectile outflows.
There will be carrots. I never eat carrots but if I accidentally
ingest mayo there will be carrots. Over a large area.
Post by KualinarI still don't believe in Poutine.
For years after we got one, I really didn't believe in colour TV.
Then I learned how they work. Now I don't have to believe, I *know*.
However, I know a lot about how aeroplanes work and I'm still rather
skeptical when a bloody great *building* roars over me at a hundred
metres or less. I'm even a little skeptical about birds. Sure, flying
by waving your fingers is just swimming in a thinner fluid but birds
look more like magic than Physics. Aeroplanes look like unsupported
mountains of metal just waiting to experience unplanned lithospheric
intersections as soon as Physics looks their way and notices how
idiotic their positions are.
Aeroplanes worry me. :)
Strangely, rockets do not.
J.