Recent Comments by Lithic 
1
1
Hey Sifters!
Help us in the private beta of our new site Dwigger. It's a threaded conversation voting site for Twitter!
Read details about participating in our private Beta Test here.
comment listing type:
Top New Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
The Best of the Best Cat Clips
Plasma Propulsion Testing
The Difference Between Barack Obama and Ron Paul
I have no other feeback on it, but as far as bias goes, this clip has it in spades, buckets AND truck loads.
Low Gravity - Mythbusters Bust Moon Landing Conspiracies
I posted 5 pictures and you pointed out 2 of the 5 that allegedly show "clear" scorch marks. Not very convincing, sorry. If they are there, then all 5 would show them. Not 2 of 5. Yeah, that's credible all right....
Correction: I pointed out 2 pictures that show them clearly, it is actually showed in all of them. Very credible, especially since YOU provided the pictures claiming nothing was there.
I would take them and put them through photoshop, highlight the areas, give you a quick run-through of light sources and shading in photos, showing why they arent shadows (there are no light sources that could possible account for a BROWN area directly beneath the landing vessels main thruster in an otherwise, everywhere, in every picture, GREY lunar surface, claiming 'shadows' just wont do when every other object and light source has their shadows accounted for in the picture), but honestly all that would be redundant since they are VERY CLEARLY THERE already. If you simply choose not to see them now, then no 'evidence' put forward by me is likely to change it.
This is precisely why I said that trying to use logic to defeat these "theories" is an exercise in futility, since there is nothing logical about the theories in the first place, and they have already made up their mind about what they see and how to interpret it.
[EDIT] Ok I wanna apologise a bit because I feel I might have come across a bit more hostile in this and other posts then was called for. Duckman, if you are acting devils advocate in this matter I certainly applaud the exercise in critical thinking, although I would question the topic since I feel these things have been around to the point where they are less of a discussion and more of a googeling competition, but that's beside the point.
I've had lots of these discussions before, and I'm starting to be more then fed up with them, which is why I thought I'd try and stay out this time. But since I have the self control of a monkey in a mango tree I manage to get roped in every time regardless.
All of the discussions I have had on this topic invariably turn into one of two things when you present evidence to the self-proclaimed "free-thinkers" of the conspiracy crowd; they either disprove your argument by putting forth another more outlandish explanation for your evidence that will still be able to account for their conspiracy, or they dismiss your evidence with a "it dosent prove anything" because you didnt manage to dispell every fabric of lingering doubt in the universe.
Absolute certainty is a philosophical impossibility and there is, in my opinion, such a thing as having too much doubt. Not every argument can or should be held as creditable (which it seems to be today), not every theory out there is worth hearing out, there has to be a limit. There has to be a point where we can say 'no, we've been over this, let's move on'. These discussions have been around since the actual moon landing (if/when/how/or/maybe/plausibly/possibly such a thing occurred), and have been disproved again and again, but somehow those guys always seem to turn up that need it proven to them, personally, in crayon, again. And that just gets to me, sorry if I went on a bit much. [/RANT]
Low Gravity - Mythbusters Bust Moon Landing Conspiracies
I clearly see shadows "professor" not scorching... Depends on your point of view I guess.
No, just no. Check it again. It does not depend on your point of view. The shadows are clear, so are the scorch marks, they are no where near each other.
That's the thing about playing devils advocate, if the side your advocating has next to no credible arguments in the first place you're just gonna end up looking like a fool.
Low Gravity - Mythbusters Bust Moon Landing Conspiracies
I'm referring to NASA's own pictures after the landing has taken place. Not the footage of the landing. You tell me where the blast crater is, or any disturbed dust under the thruster of the lander for that matter in these pictures
You want to check those pictures again professor, on pictures 2 and 4 you can clearly see the scorch marks under the lander. The engine at approach was not powerful enough to create any big crater in the surface of tightly packed regolith, neither is it expected to.
badastronomy.com sums it up rather nicely:
"Bad: In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.
Good: When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.
Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle."
Low Gravity - Mythbusters Bust Moon Landing Conspiracies
And yes, I'm sticking with that analogy, I find the image of a circle jerk full of bigots very apt in the context.
The Baby Panda Mei Lan - 1st Steps (2006)
Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Reenactment
...the rest of it was decent as well.
Springtime for Hitler -- The Producers (1969 original)
You honestly wouldnt believe how uncomfortable the situation can get when you accidentally burst out into this at your local whatever-Mart and the clientele miss the pop-culture reference.
Charles Manson's Epic Answer (24 sec)
Cat Performs Amazing Death Defying Trick!
Then of course I remember how lazy I am and I end up just writing a spiteful comment instead.