I was recently shown a link to RationalWiki - a pro-science and anti-pseudoscience wiki, which also covers a host of other topics, such as politics and debate. RationalWiki serves as a counter to wikis that post extremist and/or fringe nonsense. One excellent article I came across on the site was about the conspiracy theory that the Moon landings are a hoax:
I think the article provides an accurate account of the origins of the conspiracy theory as well as gives good counter-arguments against it. My favorite would have to be the part about the US "propping up" the Soviet Union was simultaneously wanting to "humiliate" it - that alone shows the absurdity of how the hoax advocates sound. That, and it's ridiculous to think the US bribed every single country to keep quiet. The obvious explanation is: The Moon landings were real.
(Note that RationalWiki is not connected to Wikipedia. Both sites are wikis, however; see Wikipedia's definition of a wiki for more information.)
Showing posts with label Soviet Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Soviet Union. Show all posts
Sunday, 14 August 2016
Wednesday, 17 September 2014
Scottish independence referendum, 2014
Tomorrow, Scotland is holding a referendum on whether or not to become an independent country. The referendum has come about because in the Scottish Parliament general election of 2011 the Scottish National Party, which is in favour of independence, won a majority in Scotland's parliament and subsequently passed legislation to hold a referendum.
The vote is only being held in Scotland, although the decision will affect the entire United Kingdom. I would vote "No" to Scottish independence if I could participate in the referendum. The main reason is the same reason as to why I would be against any US state becoming an independent country: because I do not want to see the breakup of the nation. Scotland and England have been united for more than 300 years, which is longer than the United States has existed.
I am also concerned about the economic consequences. No one really knows what the effect of Scottish independence would be on both Scotland the remaining United Kingdom. The immediate effect would likely be the pound (the UK's currency) dropping in value. Several businesses have stated that they would pull out of Scotland in the event of a Yes vote, which would lead to job losses in Scotland.
There's also the matter of how Scotland and the remaining United Kingdom would be viewed by the rest of the world. I saw it suggested on the news the other night that the United Kingdom's permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council could be in question, although I don't think this should be an issue given that Russia inherited the Soviet Union's seat after the latter disintegrated. Many nations already view the United Kingdom as an irrelevant ex-empire and an independent Scotland could reinforce that image. Then again, this could be a plus if it meant that Scotland and the United Kingdom wouldn't involve themselves in any more foreign conflicts.
All things considered, I think that Scotland should vote for the status quo: to remain in the United Kingdom. This country's government has promised greater devolution for Scotland were it to vote No tomorrow, so Scotland will have greater autonomy regardless of referendum's result. Great Britain is a small island; I hope the family stays together.
The vote is only being held in Scotland, although the decision will affect the entire United Kingdom. I would vote "No" to Scottish independence if I could participate in the referendum. The main reason is the same reason as to why I would be against any US state becoming an independent country: because I do not want to see the breakup of the nation. Scotland and England have been united for more than 300 years, which is longer than the United States has existed.
I am also concerned about the economic consequences. No one really knows what the effect of Scottish independence would be on both Scotland the remaining United Kingdom. The immediate effect would likely be the pound (the UK's currency) dropping in value. Several businesses have stated that they would pull out of Scotland in the event of a Yes vote, which would lead to job losses in Scotland.
There's also the matter of how Scotland and the remaining United Kingdom would be viewed by the rest of the world. I saw it suggested on the news the other night that the United Kingdom's permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council could be in question, although I don't think this should be an issue given that Russia inherited the Soviet Union's seat after the latter disintegrated. Many nations already view the United Kingdom as an irrelevant ex-empire and an independent Scotland could reinforce that image. Then again, this could be a plus if it meant that Scotland and the United Kingdom wouldn't involve themselves in any more foreign conflicts.
All things considered, I think that Scotland should vote for the status quo: to remain in the United Kingdom. This country's government has promised greater devolution for Scotland were it to vote No tomorrow, so Scotland will have greater autonomy regardless of referendum's result. Great Britain is a small island; I hope the family stays together.
Sunday, 26 August 2012
Neil Armstrong, and the Moon landing conspiracies
I was completely shocked and upset last night to hear about the death of Neil Armstrong, the first human to set foot on the moon, and by extension the first on a terrestrial body other than Earth. His accomplishment and first words on the Moon ("That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.") are both symbols of hope and human achievement. Despite his obvious importance and place in history, Armstrong was a humble man, preferring to think of himself as someone who merely did their job rather than as a hero. No reasonable person can have anything other than respect for him.
My admiration for Armstrong is one of the reasons why it infuriates me to read comments on various forums dismissing (an understatement) the Apollo 11 mission rather than commiserating over someone's death. Moon landing denial is among the very few things that immediately anger me, and it is especially sickening when it's combined with the Internet equivalent of defacing a person's grave; it doesn't matter whether it's outright insults and denial to sarcastic "he was a great actor" posts. If someone, for whatever reason, doesn't believe the Moon landings took place they should at least have some sympathy for a person who has died; to not do so is an insult to the deceased's memory.
As for the conspiracies about the landings, the more I thought about them the more I came to realize they are nonsense. To start with, without even going into the various "problems" with pictures taken on the Moon look at history: the 1960s were the height of the Cold War, and the United States and the Soviet Union were far from friends; the Soviet Union would most certainly have been aware of the launch date for Apollo 11 and it's safe to assume that they would be monitoring activity coming from the United States. When the rocket launched and headed for the Moon it is likely that they would have been listening to as much of the communications between it and NASA as possible. Thus, if the Soviets had discovered the mission was fake they would have been the first to expose the United States. Other nations, such as the United Kingdom and China, would also have had the technology to verify the existence of the mission.
I don't think that bribery would have been possible. If the landings were faked all of NASA would have to have been paid off, followed by various members and aides of other government agencies, the aforementioned Soviets (I doubt they would have accepted money over the chance to discredit the United States and try to win the Space Race themselves), other countries that would have been able to monitor the mission, anyone who supposedly helped create the "video" of Armstrong and others in a film studio, and anyone else involved in faking the mission or had the ability to expose it. The more you analyze the conspiracies the harder it is to take them seriously.
Going back to Armstrong, he was a great human being; while he was somebody who declined to be in the spotlight he is still deserving of our respect and gratitude. He has a permanent, high-profile place in the history books and will continue to be a hopeful and inspiring figure for the long-term. I wish his family the best in this painful time for them.
My admiration for Armstrong is one of the reasons why it infuriates me to read comments on various forums dismissing (an understatement) the Apollo 11 mission rather than commiserating over someone's death. Moon landing denial is among the very few things that immediately anger me, and it is especially sickening when it's combined with the Internet equivalent of defacing a person's grave; it doesn't matter whether it's outright insults and denial to sarcastic "he was a great actor" posts. If someone, for whatever reason, doesn't believe the Moon landings took place they should at least have some sympathy for a person who has died; to not do so is an insult to the deceased's memory.
As for the conspiracies about the landings, the more I thought about them the more I came to realize they are nonsense. To start with, without even going into the various "problems" with pictures taken on the Moon look at history: the 1960s were the height of the Cold War, and the United States and the Soviet Union were far from friends; the Soviet Union would most certainly have been aware of the launch date for Apollo 11 and it's safe to assume that they would be monitoring activity coming from the United States. When the rocket launched and headed for the Moon it is likely that they would have been listening to as much of the communications between it and NASA as possible. Thus, if the Soviets had discovered the mission was fake they would have been the first to expose the United States. Other nations, such as the United Kingdom and China, would also have had the technology to verify the existence of the mission.
I don't think that bribery would have been possible. If the landings were faked all of NASA would have to have been paid off, followed by various members and aides of other government agencies, the aforementioned Soviets (I doubt they would have accepted money over the chance to discredit the United States and try to win the Space Race themselves), other countries that would have been able to monitor the mission, anyone who supposedly helped create the "video" of Armstrong and others in a film studio, and anyone else involved in faking the mission or had the ability to expose it. The more you analyze the conspiracies the harder it is to take them seriously.
Going back to Armstrong, he was a great human being; while he was somebody who declined to be in the spotlight he is still deserving of our respect and gratitude. He has a permanent, high-profile place in the history books and will continue to be a hopeful and inspiring figure for the long-term. I wish his family the best in this painful time for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)