Everytime someone throws a kick or goes for rubber guard, Joe stops commentating and starts yammering semi-coherently.
If you watch some Neil Tyson interviews you kind of realise he has no idea What he's talking about, he just mumbles and stumbles over some sciencey sounding words and says that's as simply as he can explains it
“Scientist” has a definition and distinction understood to mean a specific thing in language. Tyson, as a PhD in Astrophysics, fits that definition soundly. It doesn’t matter what you consider him to be, you are wrong. Trying to change the definition of words to suit you doesn’t work.
As a big muaythai fans this hurts. Do you think Joe understands what world class muaythai is? It shouldn't even be called world class. It should be called Thailand class. Most MMA fans cant even name the 5 current top fighters in muaythai at the highest of levels."Cain Velasquez has world-class muay thai"
Again, you’re changing the definition of the word to suit your aims.He is an ex-scientist. a scientist is actively engaged in scientific research and publishing.
Again, you’re changing the definition of the word to suit your aims.
Go read the definition. It’s easy.
You seem not to understand that the special effects for faking moon gravity, and even the unique lighting on the moon, didn’t really exist back then. There are all sorts of things that really couldn’t have been faked then.Technology to fake? You mean filming video, broadcasting it, and putting text in the newspapers?
And keeping thousands of people quiet? Or simply misleading them into believing theyre contributing to something that isnt really happening?
Now im not saying they didnt land on the moon, i have no fuckin idea, but to say its easier to send 3 guys through space, land on the moon and drive around in a fucking moon car in 1969, and most importantly fly them all the way back, than to decieve company workers to believe theyre working on something that isnt real ( and there have been numerous social experiments wich did just that without any problem )... Certainly seems like a stupid thing to say.
Yes which helps the argument that we actually went there. The Russians would have called us on our shit so fast had we faked it.As someone who finds the conspiracy entertaining. It isn't anti-science based. It is based on the theory of making sure they beat the Russian space team by any means necessary.
If you watch some Neil Tyson interviews you kind of realise he has no idea What he's talking about, he just mumbles and stumbles over some sciencey sounding words and says that's as simply as he can explains it
I dont consider him a scientist. He is a science popularizer. A charismatic TV persona with a science degree.
If he was a credible scientist whos popularity came from his research, im sure his best argument wouldnt be "but faking it would be 10 times harder than doing it".
I have also suspected this is the truth. I wish I knew enough about astrophysics to know if he is a real physicist with significant publications. I think he's a physicist like Anthony Bourdain is a chef. Sure, they have the training and maybe they did it long ago, but these days they are just carefully cultivated entertainment personas.
"On the Possibility of a Major Impact on Uranus in the Past Century". Astronomy & Astrophysics (1993)
This"Once in a lifetime does not apply to Ronda Rousey. It's once EVER, in human history."
/thread. most people don't say something this stupid in their entire lives, about anything.
Everytime he called himself a comedian