Crazy Carl

[YASNY]

burn 

 

 

Not even a little warm.

[Balta1701]

My point is simple.  Scientific fact is not the be all, end all that it's cracked up to be.  Those "facts" change over time.

 

No, facts actually do not change.

 

It is merely our understanding and interpretation of those facts which can change.

[nvxplorer]

My point is simple.  Scientific fact is not the be all, end all that it's cracked up to be.  Those "facts" change over time.

Agreed, but the existence of dinosaurs is not only a scientific fact; it's a fact. Scientific knowledge changes when new information is found, or when accepted theories are shown to be innacurate. Saying that dinosaurs are a conspiracy is no different than saying the sky is a giant movie screen, and the moon is a trick perpetrated by hollywood. Such claims exhibit a complete lack of understanding of science.

 

The earth does revolve around the sun. This will never be disproven because it is fact. The reason people once believed otherwise had nothing to do with science. It was science that disproved that belief.

 

Gravity exists. The theories which explain its existence are incomplete, ever changing, and we may never fully understand how it works. That doesn't mean gravity is caused by angels.

 

Facts are facts. Facts do not change. Scientific theories change, but the facts remain. Carl can believe whatever he wants, but I stand by my statement that it's naive/ignorant to claim entire scientific fields are fraudulent.

Edited June 15, 2005 by nvxplorer

[sayitaintso]

Agreed, but the existence of dinosaurs is not only a scientific fact; it's a fact. Scientific knowledge changes when new information is found, or when accepted theories are shown to be innacurate. Saying that dinosaurs are a conspiracy is no different than saying the sky is a giant movie screen, and the moon is a trick perpetrated by hollywood. Such claims exhibit a complete lack of understanding of science.

 

The earth does revolve around the sun. This will never be disproven because it is fact. The reason people once believed otherwise had nothing to do with science. It was science that disproved that belief.

 

Gravity exists. The theories which explain its existence are incomplete, ever changing, and we may never fully understand how it works. That doesn't mean gravity is caused by angels.

 

Facts are facts. Facts do not change. Scientific theories change, but the facts remain. Carl can believe whatever he wants, but I stand by my statement that it's naive/ignorant to claim entire scientific fields are fraudulent.

  Your exactly right.

[sayitaintso]

Did anybody in here watch the first time the US went to the moon with Buzz Aldrin?

[Steff]

Did anybody in here watch the first time the US went to the moon with Buzz Aldrin?

 

 

 

I think YAS is old enough to have seen it live..

 

 

 

[nvxplorer]

Did anybody in here watch the first time the US went to the moon with Buzz Aldrin?

Yeah, I remember it. I also liked the previous mission when they just orbited the moon and came back.

[sayitaintso]

Yeah, I remember it. I also liked the previous mission when they just orbited the moon and came back.

I don't mean to sound like Crazy Carl at all, but did it look like they actually went to the moon. For some reason I just don't believe that we ever went to the moon. I don't know why I think that, I just do.

[Balta1701]

I don't mean to sound like Crazy Carl at all, but did it look like they actually went to the moon. For some reason I just don't believe that we ever went to the moon. I don't know why I think that, I just do.

 

I don't particularly want to turn this into a lunar conspiracy thread, but can you give me a specific reason why you believe that?

Edited June 15, 2005 by Balta1701

[mr_genius]

I don't mean to sound like Crazy Carl at all, but did it look like they actually went to the moon. For some reason I just don't believe that we ever went to the moon. I don't know why I think that, I just do.

 

i've wondered about that too

 

i saw some thing on the history channel about the moon landing... there was some compelling evidence as to never landing on the moon. i'm not saying we didn't land on the moon, just sayin we might not have

 

mr_genius = crazier than carl

[sayitaintso]

I don't particularly want to turn this into a lunar conspiracy thread, but can you give me a specific reason why you believe that?

That's the thing, I can't. I just never believed that we went to the moon because it just looked so fake.

Edited June 15, 2005 by sayitanitso

[sayitaintso]

i've wondered about that too

 

i saw some thing on the history channel about the moon landing... there was some compelling evidence as to never landing on the moon. i'm not saying we didn't land on the moon, just sayin we might not have

 

mr_genius = crazier than carl

I also seen something similar, but that was after I started to believe that we didn't go there. If we did, then we did.

[nvxplorer]

I don't mean to sound like Crazy Carl at all, but did it look like they actually went to the moon. For some reason I just don't believe that we ever went to the moon. I don't know why I think that, I just do.

Yes, it looked like the moon to me. Of course, never having seen the moon, I didn't know what the moon should look like up close. The earth in the distance was a definite clincher, though. Also, the idea that it would be faked doesn't make sense. The USA was in a race with the USSR at the time, and the Soviets would have discredited the mission if they could prove it. If the Soviet Union had no evidence to do so, there's no reason to believe the various conspiracy theorists do.

 

It's impossible to judge by the quality of video. On top of that, it was obvious that there was much less gravity. I would have to conclude that the government had the ability to alter the earth's gravity, and chose to do so rather than actually go to the moon, a technology which everyone knows existed. It just doesn't make sense that it was fake.

[mr_genius]

it was obvious that there was much less gravity.

 

i guess they could fake the lack of gravity with wires strapped to the actors/astronauts

 

who knows

[sayitaintso]

Yes, it looked like the moon to me. Of course, never having seen the moon, I didn't know what the moon should look like up close. The earth in the distance was a definite clincher, though. Also, the idea that it would be faked doesn't make sense. The USA was in a race with the USSR at the time, and the Soviets would have discredited the mission if they could prove it. If the Soviet Union had no evidence to do so, there's no reason to believe the various conspiracy theorists do.

 

It's impossible to judge by the quality of video. On top of that, it was obvious that there was much less gravity. I would have to conclude that the government had the ability to alter the earth's gravity, and chose to do so rather than actually go to the moon, a technology which everyone knows existed. It just doesn't make sense that it was fake.

I was watching some documenteries on the moon landing being fake, and i looked at some pictures of the moon landing and listened to their explanations and it seemed like they were right. Im not trying to say that we never went there, but the evidence against it is there.

[nvxplorer]

i've wondered about that too

 

i saw some thing on the history channel about the moon landing... there was some compelling evidence as to never landing on the moon. i'm not saying we didn't land on the moon, just sayin we might not have

 

mr_genius = crazier than carl

I wouldn't put too much faith in conpiracy theories. First of all, we landed on the moon several times. If it was going to be faked, why would we fake it over and over? It doesn't make sense. If they were going to fake it, they would have done so once, and be done with it.

 

Secondly, where did the capsule/module go? It obviously went TO the moon. Every advanced nation at the time was capable of tracking the capsule. The radio transmissions are trackable. If there were no transmissions coming from the moon, but we were pretending there were, the Soviet Union would have called us on that immediately.

 

Therefore, if we did go to the moon, why would we not have landed? That also makes no sense.

[Balta1701]

I was watching some documenteries on the moon landing being fake, and i looked at some pictures of the moon landing and listened to their explanations and it seemed like they were right. Im not trying to say that we never went there, but the evidence against it is there.

 

A lot of their evidence is just wrong.

 

Things like "there would be too much radiation" - the solar radiation amounts are not nearly high enough to hurt people, or "the flag waves in the breeze and that had to happen from earth" when the flag is just waving back and forth from the last time it was touched by one of the astronauts (the flag is actually good evidence they're really there - it wouldn't wave back and forth like it does if there was an atmosphere - its clearly undamped)

[KevHead0881]

Is there a reference to the moon in the bible? If not, I'm pretty sure Carl doesn't believe the moon exists either.

 

[sayitaintso]

I wouldn't put too much faith in conpiracy theories. First of all, we landed on the moon several times. If it was going to be faked, why would we fake it over and over? It doesn't make sense. If they were going to fake it, they would have done so once, and be done with it.

 

Secondly, where did the capsule/module go? It obviously went TO the moon. Every advanced nation at the time was capable of tracking the capsule. The radio transmissions are trackable. If there were no transmissions coming from the moon, but we were pretending there were, the Soviet Union would have called us on that immediately.

 

Therefore, if we did go to the moon, why would we not have landed? That also makes no sense.

I'm just talking about the Race to the Moon with Russia or the Soviet Union or whatever they were called back then.

[mr_genius]

Every advanced nation at the time was capable of tracking the capsule. The radio transmissions are trackable. If there were no transmissions coming from the moon, but we were pretending there were, the Soviet Union would have called us on that immediately.

 

Therefore, if we did go to the moon, why would we not have landed? That also makes no sense.

 

good point

 

[sayitaintso]

Is there a reference to the moon in the bible?  If not, I'm pretty sure Carl doesn't believe the moon exists either.

 

I don't think he does.

[South Side Fireworks Man]

Didn't see this posted.  Short article about Crazy Carl, essentially living up to his namesake.  His Wrigley slam was amusing, but a few of these comments made me a bit squeemish.

 

Nothing he said there makes me squeamish. He's pretty much correct on everything he said in the Maxim article.

 

I love the way all the PC media idiots are outraged over his recent comments! LOL!

 

Carl isn't crazy. Carl rules.

[sayitaintso]

Nothing he said there makes me squeamish.  He's pretty much correct on everything he said in the Maxim article.

 

I love the way all the PC media idiots are outraged over his recent comments!  LOL!

 

Carl isn't crazy.  Carl rules.

But Crazy Carl is a cool nickname.

[South Side Fireworks Man]

But Crazy Carl is a cool nickname.

 

I know. Sometimes I use it myself, but I always say it in a lighthearted, positive way.

 

He may be wrong about the moon landing and the existence of Dinosaurs, but these are irrelevant things anyway. Besides, he's right about most other things. Agree or not, he's just as entitled to his opinions as anyone else, and he's not mean spirited about anything.

 

He's a good ballplayer and a great team leader. That's what really matters about Carl and the White Sox.

[Steff]

Did he say he didn't believe in the moon landing...??