Talk:1456: On the Moon - Revision history

B for brain: Added comment to reply to posts by people who don't believe that we landed on the moon.

2024-12-26T18:04:56Z

Added comment to reply to posts by people who don't believe that we landed on the moon.

172.68.205.150 at 00:22, 9 September 2024

2024-09-09T00:22:14Z

172.71.147.145: /* Regular comments */ new section

2024-09-08T22:35:00Z

‎Regular comments: new section

172.71.26.55: ..."unsigned" reply that's pretty much a decade after the thing that it was replying to.

2024-09-04T19:57:26Z

..."unsigned" reply that's pretty much a decade after the thing that it was replying to.

172.68.70.135 at 18:51, 4 September 2024

2024-09-04T18:51:40Z

Davidy22 at 22:09, 5 March 2015

2015-03-05T22:09:53Z

108.162.219.103: /* T-38 and F-104 crashes are immaterial. "8:12" ratio is invalid. */ new section

2015-03-05T17:51:05Z

‎T-38 and F-104 crashes are immaterial. "8:12" ratio is invalid.: new section

Badwolf: now I have a name!

2014-12-16T12:49:11Z

now I have a name!

141.101.98.217 at 12:46, 16 December 2014

2014-12-16T12:46:52Z

108.162.223.65 at 02:37, 8 December 2014

2014-12-08T02:37:23Z

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 :That was my initial interpretation. As for the debunking, the day you can explain away the photographs which are obvious fakes, i'll start to consider believing the rest of what they had to say. If you lie about one thing, why should anything else you say on the subject be believed? We've still been there now, and anyway, it had nothing to do with this, and all to do with the description above about the ironic statement. [[User:Badwolf|Badwolf]] ([[User talk:Badwolf|talk]]) 12:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 ::I have to go. Your stupidity is causing me to lose brain cells, Badwolf. {{unsigned ip|172.68.70.135|18:51, 4 September 2024}}
 Is there a reference for the claim "Unmanned hardened pre-cooled robotic probes either got crushed or fried before landing, or survived only a couple of hours at most."? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 16:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:22, 9 September 2024
Line 70:		Line 70:
	== Regular comments ==		== Regular comments ==

−	We can land a man on the moon, so why can’t we land a WOMAN on the moon?	+	We can land a man on the moon, so why can’t we land a WOMAN on the moon? {{unsigned ip\|172.71.147.145\|22:35, 8 September 2024}}
		+	:That's certainly one of the aims of Artemis. But, face it, at the time there was the original queue to go to the Moon, the situation was that very few women were getting into the right sort of position to get to join that queue. Apoll was largely drawn from the heavily male-dominated ranks of test-pilots, which wasn't devoid of women (and, as a profession, test-piloting probably drew upon other already female-sparse 'entry tracks' to the career) but certainly they weren't particularly common so of course they just got a whole lot of men.
		+	:Whether or not it was actually driven by the needs of propaganda, but the USSR actually did a little better than the US, in this regard. What with the {{w\|Mercury 13}} never actually managed to break the Glass Karman Line, directly... It took 19 years (and one other female cosmonaut) between Valentina Tereshkova and Sally Ride, entirely skipping over the active time of the Apollo Program. Some of which might have been basic engineering pragmatism, no doubt there was a not-insignificant dose of discrimination (at least passively so, and distilled via 'trickle-up' filtering out of anyone not in the 'classic' astronaut mould), but statistically it probably isn't too wild to imagine that (based even upon the widest assessment of personnel available to move into the astronaut corps) happening to get all 12 who did the deed to be men was not exactly a wild off-chance possibility when there's basically no effort to rebalance things with positive discrimination. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.150\|172.68.205.150]] 00:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:35, 8 September 2024
Line 67:		Line 67:

	[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.103\|108.162.219.103]] 17:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.103\|108.162.219.103]] 17:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Regular comments ==
		+
		+	We can land a man on the moon, so why can’t we land a WOMAN on the moon?

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 :Appropriate handle, considering that half-baked claims that the moon landings were faked have been debunked so many times over the past forty years.  In fact, XKCD #[[1441]] (Turnabout) only works *because* we landed on the moon.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 00:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 :That was my initial interpretation. As for the debunking, the day you can explain away the photographs which are obvious fakes, i'll start to consider believing the rest of what they had to say. If you lie about one thing, why should anything else you say on the subject be believed? We've still been there now, and anyway, it had nothing to do with this, and all to do with the description above about the ironic statement. [[User:Badwolf|Badwolf]] ([[User talk:Badwolf|talk]]) 12:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
-::I have to go. Your stupidity is causing me to lose brain cells, Badwolf.
+::I have to go. Your stupidity is causing me to lose brain cells, Badwolf. {{unsigned ip|172.68.70.135|18:51, 4 September 2024}}
 Is there a reference for the claim "Unmanned hardened pre-cooled robotic probes either got crushed or fried before landing, or survived only a couple of hours at most."? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 16:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 :Appropriate handle, considering that half-baked claims that the moon landings were faked have been debunked so many times over the past forty years.  In fact, XKCD #[[1441]] (Turnabout) only works *because* we landed on the moon.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 00:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 :That was my initial interpretation. As for the debunking, the day you can explain away the photographs which are obvious fakes, i'll start to consider believing the rest of what they had to say. If you lie about one thing, why should anything else you say on the subject be believed? We've still been there now, and anyway, it had nothing to do with this, and all to do with the description above about the ironic statement. [[User:Badwolf|Badwolf]] ([[User talk:Badwolf|talk]]) 12:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 Is there a reference for the claim "Unmanned hardened pre-cooled robotic probes either got crushed or fried before landing, or survived only a couple of hours at most."? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 16:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 I assumed Megan was preemting Cueball from making a logical fallacy (a bad analogy a.k.a. [[http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/36-appeal-to-the-moon Appeal to the moon]]), by suggesting the only thing that logically follows: that it's possible to land a man on the moon. --[[User:Strindhaug|Strindhaug]] ([[User talk:Strindhaug|talk]]) 10:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
-== T-38 and F-104 crashes are immaterial.  "8:12" ratio is invalid. ==
+;T-38 and F-104 crashes are immaterial.  "8:12" ratio is invalid.
 There's a major ''apples vs. oranges'' comparison being made here.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:51, 5 March 2015
Line 52:		Line 52:

	I assumed Megan was preemting Cueball from making a logical fallacy (a bad analogy a.k.a. [[http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/36-appeal-to-the-moon Appeal to the moon]]), by suggesting the only thing that logically follows: that it's possible to land a man on the moon. --[[User:Strindhaug\|Strindhaug]] ([[User talk:Strindhaug\|talk]]) 10:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)		I assumed Megan was preemting Cueball from making a logical fallacy (a bad analogy a.k.a. [[http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/36-appeal-to-the-moon Appeal to the moon]]), by suggesting the only thing that logically follows: that it's possible to land a man on the moon. --[[User:Strindhaug\|Strindhaug]] ([[User talk:Strindhaug\|talk]]) 10:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	== T-38 and F-104 crashes are immaterial. "8:12" ratio is invalid. ==
		+
		+	There's a major ''apples vs. oranges'' comparison being made here.
		+
		+	You're really lumping the risk of pointy-nosed-airplane flying in with the risk of flying on moon-landing missions (while you're missing info on the number pointy-nosed-airplane flights, the number of people who flew them, etc.).
		+
		+	Flying an airplane is an ''ordinary'' activity, especially for those selected as astronauts. Those in the pool of people who are candidates for astronaut, would, if not selected, otherwise ''still'' be flying pointy-nosed-airplanes, likely in war (Vietnam), and likely with a ''greater chance'' of crashing (being shot down).
		+
		+	Oh! There's ''so much wrong'' with that "8:12" comparison. I'd like to go into it more, but there's not enough time. I think you-all get the idea though.
		+
		+	See the #1453 for commentary on bad methodologies. This "8:12" malarkey is a perfect example.
		+
		+	[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.103\|108.162.219.103]] 17:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:37, 8 December 2014
Line 48:		Line 48:

	The explanation gives an 8:12 ratio for moonwalkers, however, weren't there other astronauts that didn't land on the moon, but also didn't die? I thought the overall rate of deaths was around 5% (just looked it up, top link has 7.5% http://www.penmachine.com/2003/02/is-being-astronaut-most-dangerous-job.html), so 8:12 is cherry-picking, right? {{unsigned ip\|173.245.52.140}}		The explanation gives an 8:12 ratio for moonwalkers, however, weren't there other astronauts that didn't land on the moon, but also didn't die? I thought the overall rate of deaths was around 5% (just looked it up, top link has 7.5% http://www.penmachine.com/2003/02/is-being-astronaut-most-dangerous-job.html), so 8:12 is cherry-picking, right? {{unsigned ip\|173.245.52.140}}
		+	:Going into low-earth orbit and going to the moon are to very different ball games. I think the distinction is fair. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.223.65\|108.162.223.65]] 02:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

	I assumed Megan was preemting Cueball from making a logical fallacy (a bad analogy a.k.a. [[http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/36-appeal-to-the-moon Appeal to the moon]]), by suggesting the only thing that logically follows: that it's possible to land a man on the moon. --[[User:Strindhaug\|Strindhaug]] ([[User talk:Strindhaug\|talk]]) 10:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)		I assumed Megan was preemting Cueball from making a logical fallacy (a bad analogy a.k.a. [[http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/36-appeal-to-the-moon Appeal to the moon]]), by suggesting the only thing that logically follows: that it's possible to land a man on the moon. --[[User:Strindhaug\|Strindhaug]] ([[User talk:Strindhaug\|talk]]) 10:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)