October Stundie Nominations

[rwguinn]

Okay, I'm not sure if this qualifies for a Stundie, as it's not really about CTs, but it's certainly in the Stundie tradition of absolutely stupid, self-debunking posts:





You heard it here first folks, your boss doesn't have to pay you, ever.

Oh, but it got better:
when I asked

Then why would I do it in the first place?

He responded:

You would do it if you profit off of it.

I'm not entitled to benefit from sitting in my home breaking glass.

So I can't benefit from it, but I can profit off it???
The breaking glass is a complete non sequiter

 

[R.Mackey]

Yeah, that's more like it. I think most of us do some things that we don't profit from...

 

[tsig]

Saw this from a poster called cam:

"very stunning, even the average idiot can grasp the concept. "

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...howtopic=18030

Seems a perfect self description.

 

[rwguinn]

Yeah, that's more like it. I think most of us do some things that we don't profit from...

OK, let's get this straight.
Are you MY sock, or am I yours?

 

[fitzgibbon]

(And by the way we're still a little peeved over the Brits making Dolly Madison do all that work.)

Well, she only had to do it 'cuz the boys scattered PDQ. But you know, boys will be boys. [/derail]

 

[Mel Odious]

Are you allowed to post over there? They rejected me when I told them it was none of their business what other forums I posted to under what screen names.

Sorry, not a member over there. I tried signing up for membership once, but was rejected.

 

[jaydeehess]

I don't what is more Stundiable, the fact that a poster on the Blackvault posted a link to the following, referring to the posters there as the smartest people on the internet, or the posts in this thread on 'breakfornews forums"

Poster "littlematt"

Water found on moon

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090923-moon-water-discovery.html


Unlucky they missed that when they were there

ROFL

followed by poster "Raphael"

helps explain two things...
one is a victory...
why their footprints could remain intact...

I suspect it exposes a big FIB though...
...just another reason to suggest SPACE is NOT a vacuum.

namaste

next lie from science, space is not a vacuum.

 

[jaydeehess]

Oh, but it got better:
when I asked

He responded:



So I can't benefit from it, but I can profit off it???
The breaking glass is a complete non sequiter

He did not say you cannot benefit from it, just that doing so is not a 'right'.

You have the right to expect that a contract to do work for a described benefit, will be honoured and thus you profit and continue.

The breaking glass thing is shake-one's-head boggling though.

 

[jaydeehess]

Saw this from a poster called cam:

"very stunning, even the average idiot can grasp the concept. "

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...howtopic=18030

Seems a perfect self description.

Given that is a PfT foray into WTC tower no-plane allegation, yes!

 

[Travis]

Wow, so I'm back. Very eventful weekend. Got one of my neighbors arrested and we had a medical emergency in the family (full story will follow in Community) so I can finally get to the September finals. I was beginning to think I'd have to ask someone to take over this month but things have settled down.

 

[jaydeehess]

Inquiring minds were perplexed, but are now satisfied

 

[jaydeehess]

From an Apollo Hoax believer

Next up is the massive amount of fuel that will be required to power all of those rockets, for both the ascent and descent stages of the mission. The ascent stage in particular is going to be a bit of a fuel hog, as ascending 69 miles and breaking free of the Moon’s gravity is a formidable challenge, to say the least. Though it may only have 1/6 the gravitational pull of Earth, keep in mind that it is still a force strong enough to create the tides here on Earth, 234,000 miles away.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo2.html

The entire treatise is basically an arguement from incredulity, all 4 large web pages of it.

 

[sylvan8798]

From an Apollo Hoax believer

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo2.html

The entire treatise is basically an arguement from incredulity, all 4 large web pages of it.

Well that's just full of goodies:

Am I the only one, by the way, who finds it odd that people would move in slow motion on the Moon? Why would a reduced gravitational pull cause everything to move much more slowly? Does a 50-pound weight fall more slowly than a 300-pound weight? Given the complete lack of air resistance, shouldn’t things actually fall faster on the Moon? And given the fact that they were much lighter on their feet and not subject to air and wind resistance, shouldn’t the astronauts have been able to move quicker on the Moon than here on Earth? Was slow motion the only thing NASA could come up with to give the video footage an otherworldly feel?

Once again, we see that trying to expound on physics questions without studying any physics first just makes you fodder for other people's jokes.

 

[twinstead]

I can imagine the person responsible for deciding to slow down the fake footage of men walking on the moon for an otherworldly feel was probably fired right away when it was discovered that in actuality they should have been moving faster on the moon.

Curses! And we would have got away with it too, if it wasn't for Dave. And his talking dog.

 

[Horatius]

Why would a reduced gravitational pull cause everything to move much more slowly? Does a 50-pound weight fall more slowly than a 300-pound weight?

I made that same mistake once.



Of course, I was in grade 6 at the time.




I got better.

 

[grmcdorman]

I'm insane? According to you, if there was a heavy person on one side of the see-saw it would tip toward the heavy person. If the fulcrum is removed and the see-saw is falling through air, you want us to believe it will not continue to rotate until the heaviest load (person) is aligned in the direction (plane) of free-fall motion?

Pre-Galilean physics in action: heavier objects fall faster, right?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Why did it take more motion, anyway? Fighting inertia?

ETA: I know it took more because Kranz's book mentions that the EVA's were really hard until they eliminated unnecessary movements.

 

[Travis]

If they looked at the video of the EVA's they would have seen that the dust kicked up by their steps lifted and fell at a perfectly normal speed with the only anomaly being that the dust traveled in a perfect arc. Of course that wasn't strange once you consider it's a vacuum.

 

[Travis]

Also the supposed "slowness" is really the result of our own misconceptions. On the Moon their steps into the air raised them much further and made their strides much longer than a corresponding motion would have on Earth. Greater distance to travel means the step takes longer to take. Of course when we see it our brain interprets everything from the bias of Earth experience and concludes they're moving around slowly. Then, of course, you have those suits where all but the most exaggerated movements are virtually imperceptible.

 

[Horatius]

Why did it take more motion, anyway? Fighting inertia?

ETA: I know it took more because Kranz's book mentions that the EVA's were really hard until they eliminated unnecessary movements.

Actually, the hardest part was fighting the pressure in the suit vs. the vacuum of space. Every time they bent a joint, they changed the volume of the suit a little bit, which took work (in both the physics and colloquial sense of that word), as they were compressing/expanding the volume of air in the suit a little bit. Imagine what your daily tasks would be like if you had a set of springs attached to your arms and legs, that constantly biased them into a straight position. You'd tire out a lot faster doing any task at all, no matter what it was.

Modern suits have much fancier joints, that try to minimize these changes, for just this reason.

See Wikipedia for a longer discussion of this.