Re:Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic
by surfpel on Friday June 19, 2020 @02:11AM
(#23571513)
> The most effective way to prevent people from looking into something is to poison the well. Attach the thing to something else obviously false, bonus points if evokes a negative emotional response.
But then what is the end goal of all this? Anti-US propaganda?
Re:Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic
by jakeogh on Friday June 19, 2020 @02:13AM
(#23571525)
To cause the desired effect. It's the most effective technique to stop people from looking at something. Consider why this purely technical, on-topic and perfectly NIST sourced comment was flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23419760
screenshot: http://v6y.net/1592547475.screenshot.png
Re:Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic
by malft on Friday June 19, 2020 @03:22AM
(#23571945)
I assume it was flagged because unless you're already a true believer, "look! this falling building is falling according to the laws of physics" is not a very strong argument.
Re:Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic
by jakeogh on Friday June 19, 2020 @03:57AM
(#23572134)
"Study finds political bias skews perceptions of verifiable fact"
7 @ g for 2.25s is a verifiable fact from one of the most prestigious standards making bodies on the planet. There are tutorials on reproducing that NIST measurement.
You seem to be not surprised it's flagged, and you bring up belief. Why?
Believer of what? Argument of what?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21170684
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21057230