EPTWhat are some debatable accounts of history? - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
| ||
|
travito
Canada88 Posts
| ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:30 travito wrote: The only thing that I have a problem with is how little space exploration we've accomplished since the moon landing. You'd expect to have colonized the moon if that pace was upheld. Maybe I'm missing something but all I tend to see are pictures and theories, no real advances such as landing on Mars. It's expensive. | ||
|
Alexhandr
United States218 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:30 Elegy wrote: Well, this might not be one, but the myth surrounding the Charge of the Light Brigade in the Crimean War is that the entire Brigade was slaughtered to a man, whereas in reality only about a third were casualties (if I recall correctly). Interesting. I'd like to read up on this. I love mysteries like this. Or theories. Or myths. <3 | ||
|
TheGiftedApe
United States1243 Posts
if you think we didnt land on the moon you are on the first train to crazy town. | ||
|
don_kyuhote
3007 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:30 travito wrote: The only thing that I have a problem with is how little space exploration we've accomplished since the moon landing. You'd expect to have colonized the moon if that pace was upheld. Maybe I'm missing something but all I tend to see are pictures and theories, no real advances such as landing on Mars. We're not in a space race with Soviet Union anymore, so no need to rush nor pour billions of dollar to it. As for moon, I believe we got everything we wanted to get in the 1st landing such as moon rocks so there is no need to go back. | ||
|
gongryong
Korea (South)1430 Posts
I'd would love to join a separate thread on it if only the discussion is kept reasonable | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
Having studied history for the longest time, the whole thing sounds...too interesting and intriguing to be true. It is almost something out of a movie and when looking at everything else I have studied, it was nowhere near as fancy as the conspiracy theory given. | ||
|
[Agony]x90
United States853 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:20 Seronei wrote: Japan trying to surrender to the US before the nuclear bombs were dropped, but were denied because they wouldn't give up their emperor. Which they didn't actually have to do in the end. Actually, I've heard that the Emperor wanted to surrender to America, but that the military leaders did not want to. Building on this, it is also possible that the argument that the atomic bomb was dropped to save more American and Japanese lies is somewhat dubious and can be argued as simple propaganda by America. For one thing, the damage done by the atomic bombs was (in terms of deaths and property destruction) no worse than the incendiary bombing carried out on a regular basis. In fact, the bombing of Tokyo killed a shit ton more than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Also, it is possible that the atomic bomb was a good excuse for the Japanese to surrender. Rather than concede due to "normal" military failure, they could claim that the strength of the bomb was too much for them. In fact, apparently people (possibly also still today) look at the survivors of hiroshima and nagasaki as the reason they lost the war. Apparently, at the time the bomb was dropped, very few people even understood what the bomb was, and thought it was simply another case of conventional bombings. This is all stuff i've learned in a nuclear weapons class a few years back, but i'd say all this information makes sense to me. I certainly don't believe in the argument that dropping a nuke was the best means of saving American lives. In fact, even if that were the truth, it would be horribly selfish to do a thing like that. On whether or not the Japanese did indeed surrender because of the bomb or not, i'm still not entirely decided. | ||
|
Jomz
United Kingdom117 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:30 travito wrote: The only thing that I have a problem with is how little space exploration we've accomplished since the moon landing. You'd expect to have colonized the moon if that pace was upheld. Maybe I'm missing something but all I tend to see are pictures and theories, no real advances such as landing on Mars. Unfortunatly we do not have the technology to do this and theres thousands of reasons why we can't with the technology now. But with the first moonlanding if you listen to the actual video of it happening, theres a countdown. That countdown is the fuel left, I think they (read: Buzz etc) landed on the moon with something like 4 seconds left of fuel or something ridiculous because he missed his primary landing spot. Just enough left to get the shuttle back into the earths gravitational pull. They expected only a few seconds, but not that low. The cost is way to high to be econimaclly achieveable, aswell as there is no oxygen on the moon, and we have no quick and reliable way of creating an O-Zone layer on the moon. Or even creating a breathable atmosphere. The Gravity being 1/3rd that of the earth's would also play havoc with our anatomy i'm guessing, and cuase many problems. | ||
|
TheGiftedApe
United States1243 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:35 gongryong wrote: Anyone here reads Sitchin and the other "Alien ancestor" writers? I'd would love to join a separate thread on it if only the discussion is kept reasonable have you ever gone to http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/ helps to actually do some real reading and research rather than just watching grainy youtube videos. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:35 [Agony]x90 wrote: Actually, I've heard that the Emperor wanted to surrender to America, but that the military leaders did not want to. Building on this, it is also possible that the argument that the atomic bomb was dropped to save more American and Japanese lies is somewhat dubious and can be argued as simple propaganda by America. For one thing, the damage done by the atomic bombs was (in terms of deaths and property destruction) no worse than the incendiary bombing carried out on a regular basis. In fact, the bombing of Tokyo killed a shit ton more than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Also, it is possible that the atomic bomb was a good excuse for the Japanese to surrender. Rather than concede due to "normal" military failure, they could claim that the strength of the bomb was too much for them. In fact, apparently people (possibly also still today) look at the survivors of hiroshima and nagasaki as the reason they lost the war. Apparently, at the time the bomb was dropped, very few people even understood what the bomb was, and thought it was simply another case of conventional bombings. This is all stuff i've learned in a nuclear weapons class a few years back, but i'd say all this information makes sense to me. I certainly don't believe in the argument that dropping a nuke was the best means of saving American lives. In fact, even if that were the truth, it would be horribly selfish to do a thing like that. On whether or not the Japanese did indeed surrender because of the bomb or not, i'm still not entirely decided. The people of Japan most certainly wanted to fight to the death but due to being unable to communicate with the Americans, there was no chance to surrender. Of course I could be misinformed since I did not do a lot of research on the subject. However, people do not seem to realize how little power the emperor had. From what I could observe, it was the generals who created policies under the name of the nobility while the emperor more or less did nothing but act as a ceremonial figure. | ||
|
gongryong
Korea (South)1430 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:34 TheGiftedApe wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment if you think we didnt land on the moon you are on the first train to crazy town. Your proof is an article from wiki? also i the argument was 1969 moon landing, which makes all the difference because that was the time when US was on a space race vs Sovetsky Soyuz. US could have landed later, who cares, but the thing in question here is 1969. i really thought this thread was a post it and people will react yes, no, meh, whatever, and not turn it into a dedicated discussion on claims made here like moan hoax, specifically that it is an old issue. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:41 gongryong wrote: Your proof is an article from wiki? also i the argument was 1969 moon landing, which makes all the difference because that was the time when US was on a space race vs Sovetsky Soyuz. US could have landed later, who cares, but the thing in question here is 1969. i really thought this thread was a post it and people will react yes, no, meh, whatever, and not turn it into a dedicated discussion on claims made here like moan hoax, specifically that it is an old issue. You did not provide any hard evidence for your side of the argument. So in the mean time, you are wrong until you prove otherwise. At least the guy provided evidence. | ||
|
HansMoleman
United States343 Posts
| ||
|
gongryong
Korea (South)1430 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:38 TheGiftedApe wrote: have you ever gone to http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/ helps to actually do some real reading and research rather than just watching grainy youtube videos. sorry man. TL has higher standards than this  | ||
|
huameng
United States1133 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:41 gongryong wrote: Your proof is an article from wiki? also i the argument was 1969 moon landing, which makes all the difference because that was the time when US was on a space race vs Sovetsky Soyuz. US could have landed later, who cares, but the thing in question here is 1969. i really thought this thread was a post it and people will react yes, no, meh, whatever, and not turn it into a dedicated discussion on claims made here like moan hoax, specifically that it is an old issue. Haha yes, how dare he battle against your sources with a wiki! And why would you think that? Did you not see all the evidence the OP supplied with his claim? Follow his lead. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On February 10 2011 14:34 travito wrote: That is REALLY interesting, thanks for sharing that. Not interesting at all. James Brown did it before M. Jackson and he got it from Bill Bailey. The misconception is due to the common folk presuming. Also, why has no one noted the constant lie that Obama wasn't born in the U.S or that he's a Muslim. I can't stand it when I hear people say this and it's still a common stupid lie people believe. | ||
|
don_kyuhote
3007 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:43 HansMoleman wrote: The use of the A bomb, ethical? Also, the fact that we had 100k plus scientists working on a bomb that kills hundreds of thousands of people, instead of working on making the world a better place. I'm pretty sure that during the heat of WW2, the sentiment of "making the world better place" meant "kill the enemy as fast as you can in any way possible." | ||
|
Jomz
United Kingdom117 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:45 Torte de Lini wrote: Not interesting at all. James Brown did it before M. Jackson and he got it from Bill Bailey. The misconception is due to the common folk presuming. Also, why has no one noted the constant lie that Obama wasn't born in the U.S or that he's a Muslim. I can't stand it when I hear people say this and it's still a common stupid lie people believe. Actually, it usually is very interesting to alot of people as they have only known Michael Jackson to do the famous Moon Walk. Not just "common folk". | ||
| ||
