|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 7, 2007 23:12:21 GMT -4
I'd like to inform Rocky that I'm a real person. I'm not sure what a sock puppet is but I'm a Newfoundlander by birth. (Newfoundland is a province in Canada for those who don't know). I came across this forum because of my interest into skepticism, hoaxes, frauds and pranks. I'm also interested in art and creating art, music, literature, science, history, popular culture, religion, philosophy, calligraphy, guitar, piano, computers, camping, toads, squirrels and abstract patterns in rocks. I'm not the best writer, certainly not matching the eloquence of some of the members here. I believe the moon landings happened and have never doubted it. My first memory of Apollo was Apollo 8. I got a plastic model of a rocket for Christmas. On July 20, 1969 I was at a camp for Alter Boys and they didn't have a TV set. They did have radio though. I had to wait for a week to see any video of the event. What amazes me is that the HBers don't bother to do any real research about the moon landings except perhaps YouTube which is becoming the Comedy Channel of the Web ( I love watching Japanese Pranks - they are just crazy). I've always enjoyed books, have a couple of thousand of them but am making more trips to the library lately to keep under budget. All Hoax Believers should get a library card!
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 7, 2007 23:26:53 GMT -4
I'm not sure what a sock puppet is Wikipedia describes the term in some detail. And welcome to the jungle. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 7, 2007 23:51:23 GMT -4
Geez, I was thinking something else;
A puppet made from a sock (or similar garment) which is placed over the hand of a puppeteer. When a sock puppeteer fits their hand into the closed end of the sock, the sock puppet can be made to "talk" with the opening and closing of the hand.
But I followed your link and have been straightened out on this point. You never know what you're going to come across in this 'jungle'.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 8, 2007 0:07:54 GMT -4
I'm not sure what a sock puppet is but I'm a Newfoundlander by birth. (that's a part of Canada for those who don't know).I did know, but the extra exposition may prevent some readers from thinking you were a large slobbery water-loving dog who had also learned to type. Thanks for the inputs, all you lurkers and new folks! We're still at 4 on this thread; hopefully a few other newbies will chime in. rocky, what do you think of the results so far? You said the "viewers and lurkers" were "judging"; I've performed an experiment, which is still in progress. Limited sample size, but so far four out of four think Apollo was real.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jun 8, 2007 0:13:02 GMT -4
I remember the promise of Helium-3!
I think we have to wait until we can establish a proper mining colony before we can really make use of it.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Jun 8, 2007 0:32:50 GMT -4
I remember the promise of Helium-3! I think we have to wait until we can establish a proper mining colony before we can really make use of it. A mining colony would be good, but a functioning and (more importantly) economical fusion reactor would be even more important. I so want to believe that Robert Bussard's polywell reactor will work and do an end run around the money pit that is ITER, but I'm not holding my breath
|
|
|
Post by n0mad on Jun 8, 2007 1:09:15 GMT -4
I wasn't very clear. I meant that I'd seen both Apollo's overhead, one outbound and one returning. I'm afraid it was too long ago and I was too young to remember which was which, just that it impressed the Cameroonians that lived in our neighborhood as much as it did me.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 8, 2007 3:02:12 GMT -4
Waitaminute. "Nomad," written with funny typography......wasn't that a character in a Joanna Russ story? (And, no, I'm not thinking of the ship used by Gully Foyle, either).
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 8, 2007 5:03:35 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 8, 2007 5:24:20 GMT -4
Ten out of ten for predictability, rocky.
Your test is not a test of objectivity, it is simply a test to see if people agree with you or not. You know damn well that these new people won't agree with you. Your constant efforts to find ways to dismiss such people are pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 8, 2007 5:35:52 GMT -4
Geez, I was thinking something else; A puppet made from a sock (or similar garment) which is placed over the hand of a puppeteer. When a sock puppeteer fits their hand into the closed end of the sock, the sock puppet can be made to "talk" with the opening and closing of the hand. That's where the term comes from initially. The implication of talking to yourself is pretty clear there--and most sock puppets end up being just as obvious. (Also, that sock on your hand makes typing a challenge!)
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 8, 2007 6:18:19 GMT -4
I will happily answer but only after you have answered the following 1: Cats or butter? 2: Polypeptides vs Momentum? 3: Pine Sap vs LOX ?
|
|
|
Post by svector on Jun 8, 2007 6:25:14 GMT -4
There's a way to find out if these people are really lurkers and viewers, or just more of your friends. Hey "rocky" - what's your ID on YouTube? I'm guessing anon1104 or maybe ItalianoAmericano. Am I close?
|
|
|
Post by dickshane on Jun 8, 2007 8:32:12 GMT -4
I'm a lurker both on here and on the Education Forum. I live in London, UK. I have no scientific training or really any great interest in the Moon Hoax theory, but I began reading these forums because I was interested in the bizareness of the thinking employed by people who do believe the moon landings were hoaxed. So far nothing of what I've seen of the hoax believers' claims stands up to any real scrutiny. Interestingly though, I find that I don't need to know that much myself about the Apollo missions in order to get a sense of the weakness of the HBs' arguments - I simply follow the form of their arguments as they respond to people who do know about them.
Over and over again the form of HBs' arguments is weak: all sorts of logical fallacies are employed - begging the question, argument from ignorance, straw man fallacy, ad hominem fallacy - as well as simple techniques like changing the subject, ignoring rebuttals, and so on. Most seem happily unaware that they are employing them, and don't seem to understand the difference between impersonal evidence and personal opinion, proof and mere assertion, valid logic and logical fallacy. In fact, they not only seem to be unaware of what constitutes a valid argument, they don't even seem to realise that a valid argument is necessary.
I think much of the bizarreness of their logic results from the fact that they have a conclusion in search of evidence, rather than the other way around. This distorts their thinking, because they are forced to accommodate opposing evidence while still desperately trying to hold on to a conclusion which is obviously very dear to them.
I would recommend that before they do any more googling or youtubing for subversive 'facts', they acquaint themselves with the basic elements of informal logic. Anthony Weston's 'A Rulebook for Arguments' is a quick, useful guide.
I should add I think the moon landings did happen, man did walk on the moon, and I have seen nothing to persuade me otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 8, 2007 9:49:38 GMT -4
Welcome to the board, dickshane!
There's a way to find out if these people are really lurkers and viewers, or just more of your friends.
I don't know anyone on the board except as words on a screen. That said, there are now five people who qualify as "lurkers and viewers" since they have chimed in here since you resumed posting in the Apollo forum. They can't be my friends since I've never met them and we have had only a few brief exchanges on this subforum.
So, no, none of the lurkers and viewers are my friends. They are simply Internet acquaintances - as are you.
Let's see what they say about this.
No. No one is obliged to indulge your diversionary tactics. This is an Apollo forum, and the topic is Apollo. I hope the "lurkers and viewers" disregard this juvenile debating trick in the context of a discussion about Apollo. If they want to argue 9/11 conspiracies, more power to them - in the appropriate forum.
What happened, rocky, is that you made an explicit claim (the viewers are judging) with an implicit claim (they are judging you are right and we are wrong or lying). There was an easy experiment to test both claims, namely, ask them to come forward and render their judgments. Of course, you never bothered to do this experiment, just as you've never bothered to do any of the other experiments people here have laid out for you as a way to objectively test your claims. You much prefer whining about how much work it is, and how you'll wait for some "expert" to come along (presumably on YouTube) and weigh in. Of course, the real experts don't back you up, so you have never followed up any of your claims.
Now an experiment has been done for you, and the results speak for themselves: five out of five of the "lurkers and viewers" you invoked have weighed in against your beliefs and in support of the notion that Apollo happened pretty much as history and science have it. Not only that, but they have described Apollo hoax believers as "mental patients" and called their thinking "bizarre".
I will let the experiment run, but the results so far are unambiguous: the judgment is against you and your claims.
Don't whine about it. You asked for it.
|
|