|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 21, 2008 10:14:45 GMT -4
Good... Jason's income took a hit after Atlair4 left, so it's good to have another generous user of the ! in the forum. I have no idea what you're referring to here. I've been away from this forum for several months, as you know. Just a little joke. We had a member who was fond of overusing exclamation marks so Jason said "if I had a nickel for every one he used I would be rich" and then the guy got himself banned. Some people consider the quality of the posts more important than the quantity. And like I've always said, if there was a lot of activity in a forum about the supposed moon hoax then we obviously haven't been doing a good job of educating people. If it's quiet here then maybe there just aren't as many gullible suckers who believe people like Bart Sibrel as there used to be.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 21, 2008 10:40:15 GMT -4
Just a little joke. We had a member who was fond of overusing exclamation marks so Jason said "if I had a nickel for every one he used I would be rich" and then the guy got himself banned. Yeah, come to think of it, you cut him off way too soon LO. I could have used another twenty bucks or so, and he would have made it up in only a few more days. I much prefer a smaller forum where you can carry on a serious debate with one or only a few people without random idiots swooping in to post points that have already been made twenty times before, or otherwise just adding noise where it isn't needed.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 21, 2008 13:44:12 GMT -4
People must have thought Nosty was seriously wacko to describe aerial battles back in the 1500's! Yes. That must be why he made so much money at his predictions, despite the only one that he ever made that could be figured out without having to resort to ridiculous assumptions was exactly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 22, 2008 0:42:29 GMT -4
I much prefer a smaller forum where you can carry on a serious debate with one or only a few people without random idiots swooping in to post points that have already been made twenty times before, or otherwise just adding noise where it isn't needed. That's well put. A common problem at UM are the "random idiots" who have nothing to contribute to the discussion other than ad hominems. And even those are poorly written.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 22, 2008 3:49:43 GMT -4
Some people consider the quality of the posts more important than the quantity. And like I've always said, if there was a lot of activity in a forum about the supposed moon hoax then we obviously haven't been doing a good job of educating people. If it's quiet here then maybe there just aren't as many gullible suckers who believe people like Bart Sibrel as there used to be. I agree that the overall quality of posts here at AH is higher than at UM. There are many articulate, intelligent members there, but the threads are 'diluted' by many others who are just the opposite. But I'm not so sure about your theory as to why it is so quiet at the AH forum. (For one thing, I'm not a so-called "gullible sucker", who rides along on Bart Sibrel's coattails to support my argument.) The vast majority of the people I know personally believe the moon landings were hoaxed. And, like myself, they don't hold that view because of your theory (that they haven't been properly "educated" on the subject.) I've asked many of them why they don't join AH, or other forums, to discuss the hoax. And they all gave me the same basic answer. Any guess on what they all said? You may not believe me, but here goes.. Essentially, they told me it would be a complete waste of time, because of the general mindset of Apollo supporters. Various points were elaborated... - Most of the people who believe the moon landings were genuine also have a significant emotional attachment to this belief. Apollo astronauts are virtually deified, as if they were living Gods. - Some devotees of Apollo simply thrash out at any "disbelievers" with pure rage. To believe in a hoax is to "defile the Gods" (Armstrong et al.). It's pure blasphemy to even consider a hoax, because it implies that their "Gods" are liars. - Some take on the position of "educator", operating under the assumption that the hoax believers simply lack the knowledge to understand why Apollo was genuine. These "educators" believe they possess knowledge which will enlighten the uneducated / poorly misinformed hoax believers. Basically, trying to convince an Apollo believer that it was a hoax, is like trying to convince a devout Muslim to convert to Judaism.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 22, 2008 10:46:11 GMT -4
But I'm not so sure about your theory as to why it is so quiet at the AH forum. I really do believe that part of the reason why it's quiet here is that there aren't as many hoax believers as there used to be. But it's just one part of the explanation. I also think that many hoax believers who are aware of this forum are not willing to discuss it with us because they know we understand the subject too well. They would rather talk to people who don't know a lot about Apollo, they're easier to convince. I agree that you're a different type of HB. You like to make new discoveries, which is why you spend so much time arguing about whether a crater is really a crater. I wish I could believe that. I haven't met a hoax believer yet who was familiar with Apollo, and that includes you. You're familiar with only what you think supports your theory. Hmmm... sounds familiar. Stubbornness is a trait of the hoax believers. I think we would all agree that we care a great deal about Apollo. It's a major historical event that deserves to be defended from the lies told by con artists like Bart Sibrel. I don't agree that we deify the astronauts. They are celebrities, role models, maybe even heroes, but they are not gods. You really can't understand why making false accusations against someone (anyone... not just astronauts) is wrong, can you? The hoax theory implies that the astronauts are not just liars, but also complicit to murder. Making accusations like that without proof is irresponsible, and I think it's great that Apollo supporters recognize that and respond to it strongly. The problem with HBs is that they don't understand how false accusations can affect innocent people. They also don't understand that simply making a claim isn't the same as proving it. I'm sorry, but that's true. And I will add that hoax believers also lack a sense of logic that would help them recognize the flaws in the hoax theory. If you have knowledge of Apollo it becomes clear that going to the Moon is much easier than trying to fake it, and that faking it successfully would be impossible. If HBs understood that they wouldn't be HBs. Replace "hoax believers" with "Apollo supporters" and you've got the perfect description of the HBs.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 22, 2008 11:46:15 GMT -4
The vast majority of the people I know personally believe the moon landings were hoaxed. And, like myself, they don't hold that view because of your theory (that they haven't been properly educated on the subject.) So what is the evidence on which they base their belief that the Moon landings were faked? I hope you told them that arguments rebutting hoax theories usually have little to do with the astronauts themselves. Well, I won't argue that some pro-Apollo nutters make their cases in less than subtle ways. And some use incorrect arguments, too, which is annoying. But how do your friends know they know enough about Apollo? It's going to be that hard if you intend to rely on poor quality arguments.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 22, 2008 12:36:27 GMT -4
Obviously, the evidence that Turbonium's friends rely on is: -They have a significant emotional attachment to the idea that they have seen through the "official" story to the reality, and they vilify the government as if it were the devil. -They believe anyone who believes the official story is a "sheeple" - ignorant and gullible, and respond to the suggestion that they are such with pure, unbridled rage. -They refuse to put in the effort to become really educated about any subject, believing that a few moments of clicking on the web should be sufficient for any subject. All of this together allows them to use simple explanations for what are actually complex events. They believe they are among the enlightened, better informed than the ignorant masses of sheeple and standing up against the Man. It gives them the sense of being in control of their destiny and part of the "in" crowd.
In short, it has nothing to do with reality.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 22, 2008 14:34:41 GMT -4
You know, I've met one HB in person, and he was really rude about it. In the office of the emergency vet, no less, where it didn't even matter. (Not to mention the fact that the person at the counter was the son of a man who invented some widget--sorry; I didn't think to ask what and probably wouldn't've understood anyway--for the lander, I believe it was.) Most of the people I talk to on the subject are frankly dumbfounded that anyone is ignorant enough to believe that these things could have/would have been faked.
I'm sorry, Turbonium; this isn't intended to be an insult. However, bluntly, the only way you can believe in a moon hoax, a 9/11 hoax, or any of the other prominent CTs is to be either deluded or ignorant. These are your choices. The simple fact is, your ignorance has been shown again and again. Over and over. It would be apparent to a child that you don't know what you're talking about. It was you that presented that piece of "slag," right? The one with the rebar sticking out?
Have you seriously listened to what you've been told, or have you been assuming that we don't know what we're talking about because You Know the TruthTM? Have you actually considered both sides? I would love to consider your side, but you know, I can't take it seriously. Never been able to. They all sound so foolish. I mean, think about what we're being asked to believe. Shadows are always parallel? How dumb is that? Surely even you know that's dumb, right? I mean, have you taken pictures? Have you looked outside, even?
So now's your chance. I'm listening. Can you present me with one argument, one serious, cogent argument, about anything that two minutes' thought or a little research of what people who know what they're talking about think won't resolve? I'm willing to hear your side; I always have been. Go for it. Try to say something that will convince me.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 23, 2008 5:27:51 GMT -4
Ah, I knew my last post would get a few responses from the AH faithful! As usual, peterb wins the AH "Best Post" award! (our other participants - LO, Jason, and gillianren - will receive lovely parting gifts) So what is the evidence on which they base their belief that the Moon landings were faked? I didn't ask each person for a specific list of reasons (I wasn't taking notes for a survey / report!). I know a few of them mentioned the movement of the astronauts in the footage had problems. One problem was the inconsistent speed of the astronauts' movements from one mission to the next. For example, the Apollo 11 astronauts' movements were significantly slower than the astronauts of later missions (such as Apollo 15). There were several other footage-related problems mentioned. Other points came up, but that's the first one that comes to mind. I hope you told them that arguments rebutting hoax theories usually have little to do with the astronauts themselves. Nice thought, but you can't talk rationally to rude, foul-mouthed trolls. Well, I won't argue that some pro-Apollo nutters make their cases in less than subtle ways. And some use incorrect arguments, too, which is annoying. That's the sad reality on both sides. And I appreciate your candor regarding this. But how do your friends know they know enough about Apollo? From talking to them, they seem to know both sides of the argument quite well.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 23, 2008 7:55:52 GMT -4
I've asked many of them why they don't join AH, or other forums, to discuss the hoax. And they all gave me the same basic answer. One consideration they might not like to mention is that a scientific forum like this one (or BAUT) is more likely to show up the sheer dishonesty of some of the hoax proponents. I'm thinking in particular of Jack White, who manipulates images and lies about common photographic effects in his attempts to discredit Apollo. Even you got caught on UM making up a quote which you claimed came from NASA, then trying to excuse it as a joke.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 23, 2008 8:56:36 GMT -4
One consideration they might not like to mention is that a scientific forum like this one (or BAUT) is more likely to show up the sheer dishonesty of some of the hoax proponents. I'm thinking in particular of Jack White, who manipulates images and lies about common photographic effects in his attempts to discredit Apollo. No, they are not concerned about that. They aren't flakes. Even you got caught on UM making up a quote which you claimed came from NASA, then trying to excuse it as a joke. No, the person who falsely accused me of all that rubbish got caught. Seems you didn't read up to that part.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 23, 2008 15:37:16 GMT -4
No, they are not concerned about that. They aren't flakes. You do make it awfully hard to be polite to you sometimes. The reason your friends get educated when they come here is that they demonstrably don't know what they're talking about. Often, they claim things that are just silly. Even leaving aside the parallel shadows thing, which just bothers me in its pure ignorance, there's the presumption on some people's part that only Apollo 11 landed on the Moon. They've generally heard of Apollo 13; I don't know what they think happened to Apollo 12. They think Apollo existed in a vacuum; when you tell them about the advances from Mercury and Gemini, they don't know what you're talking about. They ask who took the footage of Neil Armstrong setting foot on the Moon, surely one of the easiest pieces of information to find. It goes on like that. The reason they get educated when they come here, Turbonium, is that they don't know what they're talking about. You don't know what you're talking about. You refuse to learn. Frankly, I feel rather sorry for you. You are unable to see how magnificent this accomplishment was, this great event of human ingenuity. Further, you are calling literally thousands of people liars, and with no evidence. Then again, the ludicrous hoax you advocate, proven wrong by literally tons of evidence, would have been pretty difficult to stage, too. So here's your chance. How did they do it? Explain the exact steps it takes to fake a Moon rock so that it can fool every geologist who's studied them. Explain how they were able to fake continuous hours of footage that clearly demonstrate 1/6 Earth gravity and near-total vacuum. Explain something.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 23, 2008 16:44:43 GMT -4
I can only agree with gillian. Most HBs in my experience simply are ignorant. That in itself is not a problem. We are all ignorant about some things, and particularly aspects of Apollo. Apollo is simply too huge to know inside out. However, what is a problem from HBs is that a) their level of ignorance is sometimes so basic that even seconds of research using Google would answer the question, and b) they seem determined to remain ignorant. It's hard to respect someone who comes to the table with that position.
Examples of ignorance and wilful ignorance I've seen from HBs include:
Asking who took the video of Armstrong coming down the ladder and the Apollo 17 LM leaving the surface;
The classic ignorant assumption that radiation = instant death, ergo the van Allen belts were immediately lethal and impassable;
Asking how they got the rover in the LM, when there is TV footage from Apollo 15 of them deploying it;
Insisting that such and such an image 'does not exist', when some of those images are aong the iconic and well-publicised shots (the best example being a claim that no shot existed of Earth taken from the Moon);
Refusing to look at footage they are directed to that directly contradicts a claim, or to consider that the footage exists in sections longer than a few seconds;
A total lack of knowledge about Mercury and Gemini flights;
Insisting the LM was untested;
Refusing to do simple experiments suggested (anyone recall the great lengthy debate with heavenlybody about how angle of incidence affects thermal transfer by radiative means?);
And so on and so forth. When an HB comes along with something that makes sense and which actually provides a coherent alternative to the available evidence then I'll happily consider it. However, the fact that even after forty years no single coherent alternative scenario exists is rather telling, I think.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 23, 2008 17:33:01 GMT -4
However, the fact that even after forty years no single coherent alternative scenario exists is rather telling, I think. The moon-landing hoax theory is nothing but a bunch on ignorant people making up excuses for not believing the reality of something.
|
|