4 ms·

Thanks for that, that's helpful. That's pretty damning evidence, and I can't find anything that might look similar from Namibia in Stellarium. Since you mentio

Thanks for that, that's helpful. That's pretty damning evidence, and I can't find anything that might look similar from Namibia in Stellarium. Since you mentioned my motives, I'll address that: I'm just tired of the Internet falsely accusing people and want to see more evidence before the pitchforks come out. But in this case, I'm convinced.

teraflop 8y ago
Fair enough. For my part, I'm tired of the internet (and HN in particular) being quick to dismiss the opinions of actual experts in any given field for superficial reasons. Your original comment that started this thread strikes me as a good example of the so-called "middlebrow dismissal": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224 Yes, one shouldn't blindly accept the words of an authority. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to constantly demand that those authorities constantly back up every little thing they say, even on topics about which they are more knowledgeable than you are. That gets irritating really fast (which I suspect is why you got downvoted), and more importantly, it tends to derail more interesting and productive discussions.
- leereeves 8y ago
  Usually I wouldn't even comment on an article about astronomy, but this was a public accusation of fraud. I see questioning such posts as a moral obligation. What's the bigger risk: annoying a few people with persistent calls for evidence, or letting a false accusation spread for fear of annoying people?
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    The "false accusation" is trivial to verify. The stars never change, not on the scale of human lifetimes anyway. All you had to do is look up a chart and you could prove it for yourself.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      It's not trivial if you don't know what to look for, and I obviously didn't.
      - inflatableDodo 8y ago
        The sky at night. Is quite big and appears fairly regularly, you can't miss it.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - hannasanarion 8y ago
        You obviously did, since your original comment on the matter contains the only three elements: Vega, Polaris, and the Milky Way

teraflop 8y ago

Fair enough. For my part, I'm tired of the internet (and HN in particular) being quick to dismiss the opinions of actual experts in any given field for superficial reasons. Your original comment that started this thread strikes me as a good example of the so-called "middlebrow dismissal": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224 Yes, one shouldn't blindly accept the words of an authority. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to constantly demand that those authorities constantly back up every little thing they say, even on topics about which they are more knowledgeable than you are. That gets irritating really fast (which I suspect is why you got downvoted), and more importantly, it tends to derail more interesting and productive discussions.

leereeves 8y ago
Usually I wouldn't even comment on an article about astronomy, but this was a public accusation of fraud. I see questioning such posts as a moral obligation. What's the bigger risk: annoying a few people with persistent calls for evidence, or letting a false accusation spread for fear of annoying people?
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  The "false accusation" is trivial to verify. The stars never change, not on the scale of human lifetimes anyway. All you had to do is look up a chart and you could prove it for yourself.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    It's not trivial if you don't know what to look for, and I obviously didn't.
    - inflatableDodo 8y ago
      The sky at night. Is quite big and appears fairly regularly, you can't miss it.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      You obviously did, since your original comment on the matter contains the only three elements: Vega, Polaris, and the Milky Way