Unpopular opinions

Find deals on amazon
Miura knives
Kitchen Knife Forums

Help Support Kitchen Knife Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
LostHighway said:
True that! Fahrenheit was based on the coldest temperatures (0F) and the warmest temperatures (100F) that could sustain human habitation. His early 18th C data was a bit off but the concept was sound for climate and weather. Celsius belongs in a laboratory not in daily use.
Click to expand...
OK, I'm convinced based on the fact that he had no idea.

Don Nguyen said:
Imperial is better for tolerances. Thousandths and tenths of thousandths of an inch are intuitive in manufacturing. Millimetres are not.
Click to expand...
They solved that by have units even smaller than millimetres! #NoReally
 
White people would miss out on good food if not for people of color from all parts of the world. All countries South of the border from Mexico to tip of Chili, Middle Eastern with wonderful spices, India more great spices, Asia, China, Japan, Southeast Asia Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam.

Armstrong not landing on the moon & other garbage theorys like it maybe fun in jest. In virtual world a lot of flat out lies aimed at people's fears and others agendas are popular. People believed Hitler & Gobbles that Jews were vermin to be exterminated. Then they used radio.

The same guy that started Obama birthing story saying he was born in Kenya, did much more crazy lies stated as fact. Going after the parents of elementary school kids murdered. He made millions selling survival gear, pills. Not a big fan of Hilary Clinton, but his rant that she was holding children using them for sex in a pizza place had a guy go there with a gun to kill the evil Hilary.

My relative David Sinclair delivered Obama in 1961. He was a fighter pilot in WW2 in pacific. Delivered babies for years in Hawaii. He had passed away no one of the family had any clue until Obama provided birth certificate with doctors name on it because he was under attack from Trump & others saying he was not American born. Look it up if you still think he was born in Kenya. Some people still believe that, must be true saw it on the internet.
 
ian said:
Seriously? I mean, ok, I guess it’s within the realm of possibility that someone in the administration might have tried to get a fake video made prior to launch, and then that fake video was never shown to anyone, but what’s the point in thinking about such things absent any reliable evidence? I mean, if there were anything out there to support something like that, it would have been a huge news story...
Click to expand...

[this was supposed to be unpopular opinions about knives, right? oh well, here goes...]

Remember the US government worked closely with Hollywood during WWII to create faked footage for propaganda purposes - this is absolutely true and uncontroversial. When the Office of War Information was disbanded in 1945 its departments were not dissolved but transferred to other agencies, the majority to what would become the United States Information Agency. So it's not a matter of someone in the administration, but an entire agency whose purpose was to create and disperse propaganda to help win the Cold War.

"Former USIA Director Alvin Snyder recalled in his 1995 memoir that "the U.S. government ran a full-service public relations organization, the largest in the world, about the size of the twenty biggest U.S. commercial PR firms combined. Its full-time professional staff of more than 10,000 spread out among some 150 countries, burnished America‘s image and trashed the Soviet Union 2,500 hours a week with a tower of babble comprised of more than 70 languages, to the tune of over $2 billion per year"..."
United States Information Agency - Wikipedia

There will never be a smoking gun, but if you read about the stunning amount of support given to Kubrick by the US government during the making of 2001, it's hard not to be suspicious. Here's Frederick Ordway, NASA engineer and Kubrick's main technical advisor on 2001, describing the work he did for the film:

"Lovejoy and I visited many NASA and other space installations which we photographed thoroughly inside and out. They included the Marshall Center in Huntsville; the Langley Research Center in Newport News, Virginia; and the National Weather Satellite Center near Washington, D.C. [Arthur C.] Clarke and I had a long session at the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Company in Bethpage, Long Island, on the 11th of March -- the first of several visits designed to keep us current on progress with what was then called Apollo's lunar excursion module (later, simply 'lunar module')."
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0075.html

Why would NASA, in the middle of the space race, allow unprecedented access to cutting edge technology currently in development? Does it make sense to you that they were merely helping a private citizen make a motion picture for a private company? It would have been analogous to allowing Orson Welles to review Oppenheimer's math during the Manhattan Project.

Yes, I fully realize this is tinfoil-hat territory, and very likely untrue. But to answer your question "what’s the point in thinking about such things absent any reliable evidence?" - the point is to question neatly packaged narratives about pure patriotic triumphs. Believing my theory in no way detracts from the Apollo project being an awesome scientific undertaking that put a man on the moon. But discounting that it's at least a strong possibility only serves to ignore the messy reality of government and information warfare.
 
.
this-thread-sucks.jpg
 
spaceconvoy said:
[this was supposed to be unpopular opinions about knives, right? oh well, here goes...]

Remember the US government worked closely with Hollywood during WWII to create faked footage for propaganda purposes - this is absolutely true and uncontroversial. When the Office of War Information was disbanded in 1945 its departments were not dissolved but transferred to other agencies, the majority to what would become the United States Information Agency. So it's not a matter of someone in the administration, but an entire agency whose purpose was to create and disperse propaganda to help win the Cold War.

"Former USIA Director Alvin Snyder recalled in his 1995 memoir that "the U.S. government ran a full-service public relations organization, the largest in the world, about the size of the twenty biggest U.S. commercial PR firms combined. Its full-time professional staff of more than 10,000 spread out among some 150 countries, burnished America‘s image and trashed the Soviet Union 2,500 hours a week with a tower of babble comprised of more than 70 languages, to the tune of over $2 billion per year"..."
United States Information Agency - Wikipedia

There will never be a smoking gun, but if you read about the stunning amount of support given to Kubrick by the US government during the making of 2001, it's hard not to be suspicious. Here's Frederick Ordway, NASA engineer and Kubrick's main technical advisor on 2001, describing the work he did for the film:

"Lovejoy and I visited many NASA and other space installations which we photographed thoroughly inside and out. They included the Marshall Center in Huntsville; the Langley Research Center in Newport News, Virginia; and the National Weather Satellite Center near Washington, D.C. [Arthur C.] Clarke and I had a long session at the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Company in Bethpage, Long Island, on the 11th of March -- the first of several visits designed to keep us current on progress with what was then called Apollo's lunar excursion module (later, simply 'lunar module')."
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0075.html

Why would NASA, in the middle of the space race, allow unprecedented access to cutting edge technology currently in development? Does it make sense to you that they were merely helping a private citizen make a motion picture for a private company? It would have been analogous to allowing Orson Welles to review Oppenheimer's math during the Manhattan Project.

Yes, I fully realize this is tinfoil-hat territory, and very likely untrue. But to answer your question "what’s the point in thinking about such things absent any reliable evidence?" - the point is to question neatly packaged narratives about pure patriotic triumphs. Believing my theory in no way detracts from the Apollo project being an awesome scientific undertaking that put a man on the moon. But discounting that it's at least a strong possibility only serves to ignore the messy reality of government and information warfare.
Click to expand...

I dunno. The Kubrick thing could just as easily be that scientists were psyched to have a famous movie director get inspiration from their work. I doubt they were showing him anything top secret... that’s not nearly compelling enough to make me start thinking this is a useful thought exercise.

I mean, think whatever you want, as long as you don’t make important decisions based on these theories, or inspire others to do so. I’m in the camp of “there’s zero compelling evidence, and the truth of this wouldn’t affect my life anyway, so why spend time thinking about this?”
 
No I'm not joking about the units.

Twigg said:
What about micrometers and the rest of the nanoscale?
Click to expand...

Here's an example: hole tolerancing. For a specific fit, the tolerance is often +/-0.0005", or half a thou, or 5 tenths. From a machining/manufacturing standpoint, that's a very easy standard to visualize and feel and a useful increment to work with. There are a lot of operations and tolerancing in machining that are based simply off a thou. Millimeters is just too awkward a size to work with, where 0.1mm is still too large for precise operations and the next unit down is a difference of three orders of magnitude. Using 0.0127mm or 12.7micrometers is just awkward.
 
Don Nguyen said:
No I'm not joking about the units.



Here's an example: hole tolerancing. For a specific fit, the tolerance is often +/-0.0005", or half a thou, or 5 tenths. From a machining/manufacturing standpoint, that's a very easy standard to visualize and feel and a useful increment to work with. There are a lot of operations and tolerancing in machining that are based simply off a thou. Millimeters is just too awkward a size to work with, where 0.1mm is still too large for precise operations and the next unit down is a difference of three orders of magnitude. Using 0.0127mm or 12.7micrometers is just awkward.
Click to expand...
Excellant point! I complete forgot about the manufacturing and machinist perspective.
 
Keith Sinclair said:
White people would miss out on good food if not for people of color from all parts of the world. All countries South of the border from Mexico to tip of Chili, Middle Eastern with wonderful spices, India more great spices, Asia, China, Japan, Southeast Asia Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam.
Click to expand...
Is this actually an unpopular opinion/statement on this forum though?
 
Don Nguyen said:
No I'm not joking about the units.



Here's an example: hole tolerancing. For a specific fit, the tolerance is often +/-0.0005", or half a thou, or 5 tenths. From a machining/manufacturing standpoint, that's a very easy standard to visualize and feel and a useful increment to work with. There are a lot of operations and tolerancing in machining that are based simply off a thou. Millimeters is just too awkward a size to work with, where 0.1mm is still too large for precise operations and the next unit down is a difference of three orders of magnitude. Using 0.0127mm or 12.7micrometers is just awkward.
Click to expand...
it's only weird because of your starting point being imperial, which is weird AF and not even decimal
 
But working in metric means parts are not proportional. Take a look at something as basic as screw dimensions. In the imperial system, every nut and bolt is proportional - you can copy and paste their design and simply change the scale. With metric, an M3 flathead screw has a different profile than an M4, for instance, because they're decimal based rather than fractional. That's the real strength of imperial when it comes to machining.
 
Goebbels forgot the e

This thread off topic for a while. The moon shot stuff got me going. Langley Research Center is in Hampton Va. At Langley AFB. Not in Newport News as you stated.

My Father worked there from 1939 when it was NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) It became NASA late 50's because Russians were beating us into space. He retired after all the moon shots. As a kid grew up early days of space race. My best friend's father was head engineer of X15 rocket plane.
 
juice said:
Yeah, but working in metric means not relating everything back to imperial, so you don't get weird numbers like that.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying though is that every increment of a thou is a physically intuitive and incredibly useful standard. One mm is useless for precision and one micron is too small (and apparently there's nothing in between those units...). Even 0.1mm is too large for intuitive machining operations.
 
Don Nguyen said:
What I'm saying though is that every increment of a thou is a physically intuitive and incredibly useful standard. One mm is useless for precision and one micron is too small (and apparently there's nothing in between those units...). Even 0.1mm is too large for intuitive machining operations.
Click to expand...
I don't know how the Germans. Brits and Japanese, and any other country doing high precision engineering cope.
 
spaceconvoy said:
[this was supposed to be unpopular opinions about knives, right? oh well, here goes...]

Remember the US government worked closely with Hollywood during WWII to create faked footage for propaganda purposes - this is absolutely true and uncontroversial. When the Office of War Information was disbanded in 1945 its departments were not dissolved but transferred to other agencies, the majority to what would become the United States Information Agency. So it's not a matter of someone in the administration, but an entire agency whose purpose was to create and disperse propaganda to help win the Cold War.

"Former USIA Director Alvin Snyder recalled in his 1995 memoir that "the U.S. government ran a full-service public relations organization, the largest in the world, about the size of the twenty biggest U.S. commercial PR firms combined. Its full-time professional staff of more than 10,000 spread out among some 150 countries, burnished America‘s image and trashed the Soviet Union 2,500 hours a week with a tower of babble comprised of more than 70 languages, to the tune of over $2 billion per year"..."
United States Information Agency - Wikipedia

There will never be a smoking gun, but if you read about the stunning amount of support given to Kubrick by the US government during the making of 2001, it's hard not to be suspicious. Here's Frederick Ordway, NASA engineer and Kubrick's main technical advisor on 2001, describing the work he did for the film:

"Lovejoy and I visited many NASA and other space installations which we photographed thoroughly inside and out. They included the Marshall Center in Huntsville; the Langley Research Center in Newport News, Virginia; and the National Weather Satellite Center near Washington, D.C. [Arthur C.] Clarke and I had a long session at the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Company in Bethpage, Long Island, on the 11th of March -- the first of several visits designed to keep us current on progress with what was then called Apollo's lunar excursion module (later, simply 'lunar module')."
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0075.html

Why would NASA, in the middle of the space race, allow unprecedented access to cutting edge technology currently in development? Does it make sense to you that they were merely helping a private citizen make a motion picture for a private company? It would have been analogous to allowing Orson Welles to review Oppenheimer's math during the Manhattan Project.

Yes, I fully realize this is tinfoil-hat territory, and very likely untrue. But to answer your question "what’s the point in thinking about such things absent any reliable evidence?" - the point is to question neatly packaged narratives about pure patriotic triumphs. Believing my theory in no way detracts from the Apollo project being an awesome scientific undertaking that put a man on the moon. But discounting that it's at least a strong possibility only serves to ignore the messy reality of government and information warfare.
Click to expand...

Sorry, and why on earth would you hire a famous director and his crew to fake the moon landing? Talk about a security risk. You’re not making an art film... you just want some footage of astronauts on the moon, presumably!

This is complete lunacy, if you’ll pardon the moon pun.
 
Last edited:
ian said:
Sorry, and why on earth would you hire a famous director and his crew to fake the moon landing? Talk about a security risk. You’re not making an art film... you just want some footage of astronauts on the moon, presumably!
Click to expand...

How exactly would you be sure to capture realistic footage that would hold up to international scrutiny, for a setting no one has ever visited? Some random hack or the smartest working director? And that's the brilliance of using 2001 A Space Odyssey as the cover. The entire cast and crew don't have to know they're faking the moon landing, just one person you can easily leverage, in exchange for unlimited access to NASA research and a massive budget with complete creative control. His own reputation would be enough to minimize the security risk. All you have to do is ship in the lunar module mockup NASA used for training, and the covert side of the operation can be accomplished by very few people compared to your proposal, and with far more convincing results.
 
Sigh... to fake a moon landing, hire a special effects team. As much as I like Kubrick, you don’t need to hire the director of Spartacus and Lolita.
 
Drama? Does this theoretical argument actually threaten your worldview? I've been totally upfront about the likely possibility this is all ********, just thinking through how it would have been accomplished... By your own logic, wouldn't hiring a team specifically for the purpose of faking the moon landing be a bigger security risk than co-opting a director of a legitimate film? And again, how does this special effects team know what humans on the moon's surface would look like? It's a huge research project in itself, and was the focus of considerable attention and resources during the making of 2001.
 
ian said:
Sigh... to fake a moon landing, hire a special effects team. As much as I like Kubrick, you don’t need to hire the director of Spartacus and Lolita.
Click to expand...
My favourite bit about these conspiracy theories is that somehow nobody involved ever breaks out and explains how they're actually conspiracies, but most people can't keep an irrelevant "secret" for more than two minutes...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top