Difference between pages "Predictable" and "Talk:Apollo 11"

From Conservapedia
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(Controversy: No no no no no, just NO)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Predictable''' means capable of being [[Prediction|foreseen]].
+
==The "One small step" quotation==
 +
I don't know if I'm going to be challenged on this... but I really want the "a" in brackets.
  
[[Category:Dictionary]]
+
The form with the "a" in brackets is what the Encyclopædia Britannica uses. Actually, their [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-237057/space-exploration current online article] says
 +
:“That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.” (In the excitement of the moment, Armstrong skipped the “a” in the statement he had prepared.)
 +
 
 +
The best thing I can say is to listen to the numerous recordings and judge for yourself. I've never heard an "a" there. The small amounts of noise or transmission artifacts do not occur in a place where they would obscure it. The only reason for hearing an "a" there is that the quotation only makes sense that way and so there's a tendency to fill it in perceptually.
 +
 
 +
In the excellent [http://www.snopes.com/quotes/onesmall.asp Snopes] discussion, see the indented passages beginning "On July 20, 1969, Joel Shurkin..." and "Later, a representative for the Grumman corporation..."
 +
 
 +
So, he blew his line, and out of courtesy to him (and, I suppose, in deference to his own account) an increasing number of reference sources are reporting what he ''meant'' to say instead of what he actually ''did'' say.
 +
 
 +
This is (obviously!) a pet peeve of mine, because I have the feeling I am watching the distortion of history in my own lifetime. It really amazes me: if there can be a controversy like this about an event that was televised live and watched by half a billion users within living memory... and about a simple fact that does not have any great political, financial, or legal implications. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:28, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
== Controversy ==
 +
A number of sources provide reasonable arguments suggesting that the moon landings were a hoax. I think we should include this- we are neutral to the facts, and the facts do often support their claims. Comments? --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 22:33, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 +
:Make a link to a separate article with possible title "Moon landing hoax" and work from there.  Make it as detailed as possble, include all arguments made by hoax supporters, as well as arguments refuting them.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:49, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 +
::The "fake moon landing" controversy has been refuted and debunked MANY times, even going so far as to be debunked on Mythbusters. The controversy has about as much support and logic as the conspiracy that the WTC was an inside job. This is an encyclopedia, we shouldn't give credit to every nutjob conspiracy out there (despite the Obama article). --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:08, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Revision as of 22:08, 4 February 2009

The "One small step" quotation

I don't know if I'm going to be challenged on this... but I really want the "a" in brackets.

The form with the "a" in brackets is what the Encyclopædia Britannica uses. Actually, their current online article says

“That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.” (In the excitement of the moment, Armstrong skipped the “a” in the statement he had prepared.)

The best thing I can say is to listen to the numerous recordings and judge for yourself. I've never heard an "a" there. The small amounts of noise or transmission artifacts do not occur in a place where they would obscure it. The only reason for hearing an "a" there is that the quotation only makes sense that way and so there's a tendency to fill it in perceptually.

In the excellent Snopes discussion, see the indented passages beginning "On July 20, 1969, Joel Shurkin..." and "Later, a representative for the Grumman corporation..."

So, he blew his line, and out of courtesy to him (and, I suppose, in deference to his own account) an increasing number of reference sources are reporting what he meant to say instead of what he actually did say.

This is (obviously!) a pet peeve of mine, because I have the feeling I am watching the distortion of history in my own lifetime. It really amazes me: if there can be a controversy like this about an event that was televised live and watched by half a billion users within living memory... and about a simple fact that does not have any great political, financial, or legal implications. Dpbsmith 08:28, 9 May 2007 (EDT)


Controversy

A number of sources provide reasonable arguments suggesting that the moon landings were a hoax. I think we should include this- we are neutral to the facts, and the facts do often support their claims. Comments? --DReynolds 22:33, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Make a link to a separate article with possible title "Moon landing hoax" and work from there. Make it as detailed as possble, include all arguments made by hoax supporters, as well as arguments refuting them. Karajou 22:49, 4 February 2009 (EST)
The "fake moon landing" controversy has been refuted and debunked MANY times, even going so far as to be debunked on Mythbusters. The controversy has about as much support and logic as the conspiracy that the WTC was an inside job. This is an encyclopedia, we shouldn't give credit to every nutjob conspiracy out there (despite the Obama article). --ShawnJ 23:08, 4 February 2009 (EST)