Stevehw33 - The callout thread!

[najab]

I know this isn't Space Science, but I hope you'll forgive my out-of-area post.<p>In this thread, stevehw33 said: "A good part of NASA's budget comes from military and there are close ties there (the astronauts are almost all active service military pilots), so it's a possibility."<p>I disputed that claim, provided a link to the official NASA astronaut handbook (which contradicts his statement) and asked him to back up his original claim. He replied: "Last time I reviewed the graduates and class of NASA, almost all those were military. You can check for yourself on NASA's website." And further, he said: "I don't know where you got your information, but NASA's latest class was almost all military."<p>I replied and provided a link to the 2004 Astronaut Class page at NASA which lists, by my count (and the count of others), 4 out of 11 astronauts being miltary.<p>Stevehw33's response was "Frist of all, it's 6 out of 11 being miltiary, as simple count which you obviously miss. and you are ignoring all the previous classes and astronauts." He then goes on to say: "It's very interesting that you find it easy to evade the truth by using false statistics. But this must necessarily enlighten others as to your methods, which have been in the past and present, neither up front, logical or factual in too many cases."<p>I have since posted in the thread and asked stevehw33 to explain that accusation, but he apparently hasn't seen it.<p>So I am asking, in public, for stevehw33 to either explain that comment or take it back - especially since I have provided links to back up my statements and you have provided nothing except opinion.</p></p></p></p></p></p>

 

[najab]

><i>And I pointed out that was just going by ONLY 2004 class, and ignoring all the others, and the facts that the pilots NASA uses are all military, was a biasing of the data by skewing the samples.</i><p>Your <b>exact</b> statement was: "I don't know where you got your information, but NASA's latest class was almost all military." <b>YOU</b> brought up the class of 2004, and now you complain that it biases the statistics?!<p>><i>I also saw last nite, a US Air Force commercial for recruitment and guess what? The commercial was a set from space. Thus showing that the US Air Force provides almost all the pilots for NASA. Thus showing once again the complete and vast ties between NASA & the US military.</i><p>Wow, that's quite a statement, let's dissect it:<li><i>I also saw last nite, a US Air Force commercial for recruitment</i> - So we're basing this 'discussion' not on official lists or NASA publications, but on an Air Force commercial? I guess there must be truth in advertising.<li><i>The commercial was a set from space.</i> - Don't know what this proves. Maybe that the Air Force is trying to appeal to the <i>Star Wars</i> generation?<li><i>Thus showing that the US Air Force provides almost all the pilots for NASA.</i> - This is an amazing logical jump. The Air Force commercial is set in space, proving that NASA gets almost all its pilots from the Air Force. Sorry, you lost me there.<li><i>Thus showing once again the complete and vast ties between NASA & the US military.</i> - You get this from a recruitment commercial? I guess I was expecting too much proof - you know, budgets, Congressional appropriations bills, that kind of thing. I should just have watched more TV.<p>><i>Deny that NASA's pilots are all military. Go ahead. I dare you!</i><p>Ahh, subtly trying to change your position to one which is supportable. Your original statements were "[T]he astronauts are almost all active service military pilots" and "Last time I reviewed the graduates and class</p></p></li></li></li></li></p></p></p>

 

[najab]

Steve, just explain to me how we're supposed to reconcile: <i>"I reviewed the 2002 and 2003 classes and they were almost all military. Those previous to those, ever more so."</i> to the fact that there was no astronaut class in 2002 or 2003?

 

[Leovinus]

. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

And that, ladies and gentlement, is why I will no longer take anything stevehw33 says seriously. Thank you for coming, you've been a great audience.

 

[Leovinus]

<i>Two years ago, NASA had began recruiting a class of 2002, but the agency decided it already had enough astronauts and terminated the process in April 2002. Applicants were sent an explanatory postcard: “Because of recent decisions concerning resources and schedules for the International Space Station and Space Shuttle Programs, we have determined that <font color="yellow">it will not be necessary to select a new class of Astronaut Candidates for 2002</font> Our next class will be delayed until no sooner than 2003.”<br /><br /><font color="yellow">In May 2003, NASA began accepting applications for mission specialist and pilot astronaut candidates for the <b>class of 2004</b>.</font>The application deadline was July 1, 2003. </i><br /><br />link<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

I know that. That's why I asked stevehw33 to explain his statement that he had reviewed the classes of 2002 and 2003.<p>He couldn't have, since there were none!</p>

 

[Leovinus]

I know you knew. Now you know that I know that you knew. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

That's good to know. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[najab]

So, your reaction to being caught in a bold-faced lie is "Stop beating a dead horse."? You should be a politician.

 

[Leovinus]

I know I've made mistakes before. The last one was in 1973, or was it 1972.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>There is difference between an honest mistake and a lie.</i><p>Since it was an honest mistake, explain to me how you "<i>reviewed the 2002 and 2003 classes</i>" so closely as to determine that "<i>they were almost all military</i>", yet missed the fact that there was no astronaut class in 2002 or 2003?</p>

 

[mrmorris]

najaB -- I checked out the class roster of the class of 2012 and every single one of them will be military. How do you explain <b>that</b>?

 

[najab]

Perhaps you should ask stevehw33, since he has the ability to read documents that don't exist.

 

[astrophoto]

This thread should be stickied so that we can point to it everytime Steve throws unproven facts around. Oh wait, that's almost every post of his.

 

[killium]

I haven't come back here since several month by now espacially because of Stevehw33's show. This board is polluted by his 'i know everything and you know nothing and you shouldn't even consider replying to this since it's ME that said it so it is the absolute thruth cause i am the only one here who knows about scientific method and i am the only one who applys it and if you finally do answer i will point every grammatical error you made as a proof of your ignorance' attitude.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

This thread started out ok as an attention-getter to have Steve explain a couple of things. But if it just turns into a Steve-bashing thread, I'm going to lock it and/or delete it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vladius]

This thread made me laugh. So the guy fudged numbers, made exagerations, extrapolated 2002/3 numbers using decades of previous data instead of counting them himself, then he redirected attention, and then had the ability to laugh at himself when he was found out. Steve... dude.. get out of science and be a politician. you have all the skills it takes!! haha! but still no need to bash the guy.

 

[najab]

To re-enforce what Leo posted, if you have a problem with something <i>specific</i> that stevehw33 has posted, here's the place to ask. If you just want to bash him, as tempting as that is, please do it somewhere else.

 

[bobvanx]

Sometimes people don't know how to admit they made a mistake.<br /><br />Sometimes it's a professional hazard to admitting making a mistake. Steve works in a field where this is the case.<br /><br />Since this forum isn't part of your career, Steve, it should be safe for you to admit to error here. I will model for you how to apologize. You could just cut and paste it if you need to!<br /><br />"Oops, you caught me, I didn't review the 2002 and 2003 roster (since obviously, I couldn't have). I also appreciate the opportunity to modify my statement from "All astronuats" to "all astrounaut pilots" are from a military background. Thanks very much for helping me get my facts straight."

 

[najab]

That would be a start. However, and I admit I might be being childish here, that still leaves the matter of stevehw33 apologising to me for his accusation that I was playing with the statistics when he was, apparently, pulling his 'statistics' out of his arse.

 

[tom_hobbes]

Thanks for the the laugh Naja! He he....<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#339966"> I wish I could remember<br /> But my selective memory<br /> Won't let me</font><font size="2" color="#99cc00"> </font><font size="3" color="#339966"><font size="2">- </font></font><font size="1" color="#339966">Mark Oliver Everett</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

Stevehw33, while we're on the topic of your statements, you still haven't told me which of your statements is correct: when you said "Mars has virtually no atmosphere.", or when you talk of "wind, clouds, dust storms and lots of things commonly associated with a significant atmosphere. " (all of which Mars has)?

 

[najab]

Please, again, no bashing. I really don't want this thread to get deleted.

 

[bobvanx]

This really is a curiosity, isn't it?<br /><br />Observations and comments:<br /><br />These boards are entirely "opt-in."<br />Since no one can force you to read any of this, any emotions you experience are entirely self-assigned.<br />Many of us keep coming back.<br /><br />I think this says something very profound about humans, community, and personal development.