[thechat] Hoaxers vs. Rocket Scientists
lists at mantruc.com
Thu Dec 26 11:48:00 CST 2002
William Anderson wrote:
> > ok, that "common sense" (enemies watching close) convinced *this* idiot,
> > now how are you going to convince me that a plane *did* crash against
> > the pentagon?
> http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14 should suffice ...
thanks William, I was actually wondering because I'd seen those same
"Hunt the Boeing" pictures and questions, long time ago, and was left
with the doubt. The answers in that blog sound very reasonable (and I
had previously heard of only a few eyewitnesses).
And one very important thing is that the way the questions are put is
very manipulatory. I remember attending this scientist's class, then
first part of his course discussed the scientific method, and he placed
a lot of emphasis on how defining the question or problem, is most of
the time, a strong lead towards the answer, and how he had to be very
careful at defining his problems in order to make his work with complete
And from the blog, I liked this sentence a lot "If there's anything we
learned that day, it's that we are poor judges of what is and isn't
possible." I for one, have always believed such tall buildings are very
risky (so big you can't evacuate quickly enough) but I could never
expect what we all saw on that morning.
> > From: javier velasco <lists at mantruc.com>
> > > from NASA for kids (or idiots):
> > > http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News-MoonLanding.asp
> > ok, that "common sense" (enemies watching close) convinced *this*
> > idiot,
> actually, i meant the explanations were oversimplified because
> they were targetted at children... as such, they leave a lot out... but
> i included the link because it's official NASA speak...
I only meant that such simple evidence was enough to dissipate my
More information about the thechat