|
Post by JayUtah on May 11, 2010 11:01:35 GMT -4
HBs love to play people off against each other.David Percy was notorious for this during the time when he was actually pretending to pay attention to his critics. They never allow for differences of opinion, for different assumptions, or for honest mistakes.Or for legitimate variance in suggested alternatives. Conspiracists often employ the indirect argument: e.g., "It must be artificial light doing this because no feature of natural light could cause it." This example doesn't actually show proof of artificial light; it proposes to falsify competing hypotheses instead, so that the desired conclusion holds by default. In order for this to work as proof, the proponent must demonstrate that he has completely eliminated the competing hypotheses, and that the hypotheses he treats are all that can exist. Naturally no conspiracist does this, but it does tend to fool people who would only casually object to the hoax theory. Consequently the appropriate rebuttal identifies alternatives that the proponent has not yet considered: "What about reflected light from the lunar surface?" or "Perhaps the camera exposure settings artificially amplify the fill light." In order to continue to hold his desired belief by default, he must falsify each and every one of them without shifting the burden of proof. Instead the conspiracist often points out that the proposed causes are contradictory (although the two examples above don't really contradict each other). Or he points out that the proponents "can't agree on an explanation." He doesn't understand that only one of them needs to hold in order to refute his default hypothesis. Again, David Percy actually attempted such a defense: www.aulis.com/apollo-investigation-2003.htmAs the kids would say: *facepalm*. I respond here: www.clavius.org/bibaulis2003.html
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on May 12, 2010 6:21:14 GMT -4
Well, that took about a year, from the beginning of the process to publication Excellent work, Wade. Glad to see that Brian's name had been properly reinstated.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on May 12, 2010 8:32:48 GMT -4
HBs love to play people off against each other.David Percy was notorious for this during the time when he was actually pretending to pay attention to his critics. They never allow for differences of opinion, for different assumptions, or for honest mistakes.Or for legitimate variance in suggested alternatives. Conspiracists often employ the indirect argument: e.g., "It must be artificial light doing this because no feature of natural light could cause it." This example doesn't actually show proof of artificial light; it proposes to falsify competing hypotheses instead, so that the desired conclusion holds by default. In order for this to work as proof, the proponent must demonstrate that he has completely eliminated the competing hypotheses, and that the hypotheses he treats are all that can exist. Naturally no conspiracist does this, but it does tend to fool people who would only casually object to the hoax theory. Consequently the appropriate rebuttal identifies alternatives that the proponent has not yet considered: "What about reflected light from the lunar surface?" or "Perhaps the camera exposure settings artificially amplify the fill light." In order to continue to hold his desired belief by default, he must falsify each and every one of them without shifting the burden of proof. Instead the conspiracist often points out that the proposed causes are contradictory (although the two examples above don't really contradict each other). Or he points out that the proponents "can't agree on an explanation." He doesn't understand that only one of them needs to hold in order to refute his default hypothesis. Again, David Percy actually attempted such a defense: www.aulis.com/apollo-investigation-2003.htmAs the kids would say: *facepalm*. I respond here: www.clavius.org/bibaulis2003.html I think we just need to accept that there are some people in this world who are, well, so to speak, brainless. Society needs people like these to fulfil the menial roles.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 12, 2010 10:42:02 GMT -4
I think we just need to accept that there are some people in this world who are, well, so to speak, brainless. Why can't they also be mouthless?
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on May 12, 2010 11:16:46 GMT -4
I think we just need to accept that there are some people in this world who are, well, so to speak, brainless. Why can't they also be mouthless? Because freedom of speech works both ways.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on May 12, 2010 11:30:00 GMT -4
Why can't they also be mouthless? Because freedom of speech works both ways. I actually like having HBs around. I've learned a lot from following the threads. Its also interesting to see how the brainless logic works. For example, over on Icke........... Apollo was faked, however Ed Mitchell says he saw UFOs when he was on the moons surface. They believe Mitchell saw UFOs on the moon, but they also believe was never there to see them. Or how about Hagbards - they faked it, in a life-sized studio on the moon itself! Then went out and left balsa-wood models on the sites to fool the future LRO mission 40 years later. Priceless.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on May 12, 2010 22:25:34 GMT -4
...the conspiracist often points out that the proposed causes are contradictory... Or he points out that the proponents "can't agree on an explanation." He doesn't understand that only one of them needs to hold in order to refute his default hypothesis. Again, David Percy actually attempted such a defense: www.aulis.com/apollo-investigation-2003.htmAs the kids would say: *facepalm*. I respond here: www.clavius.org/bibaulis2003.htmlWow! Another great Aulis page which I have not seen before. Well worthy of close study by those who are interested in the analysis of either historical events or of hoax claims. Jay: I found three minor typos which I'll put in the usual "typo" thread.
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Dec 23, 2010 20:16:40 GMT -4
Hi: I recently put up the second and probably final part of my Brian O’Leary biography project, which is his Wikipedia bio: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_O%27LearyAlthough Brian would rather not get drug into the moon hoax issue anymore, I knew that it would be an enduring issue, as far as his public persona was involved, and the moon hoax part of the Wikipedia bio I did not change from how it was originally written. But today, as I was giving the bio another review, I felt that there should be some reference to Brian’s final statement on the matter, and I knew of no better reference than Clavius’s account: www.clavius.org/oleary.htmlso I made the reference to it in both the Wikipedia bio and the bio that is on my site www.ahealedplanet.net/brianbio.htm(which contains information that would probably not fly on Wikipedia, and some that shouldn’t). Although there was some controversy not long ago about Brian making those statements to Jay, I put them in contact, and what Jay reported is consistent with how Brian felt back in 2001. Brian may always say that he can’t be 100% sure that astronauts walked on the moon, because he did not go there himself, and that is a reasonable position, to take, IMO. I am glad that Clavius is still around, so I could make that link to it. Happy Holidays, Wade
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Dec 23, 2010 20:27:50 GMT -4
Merry Xmas and Happy New Year to you, too, Wade!
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Dec 24, 2010 11:36:44 GMT -4
Thanks, Obviousman, for always helping to make me feel welcome here.
|
|
|
Post by photobuster919 on Jan 6, 2011 18:50:26 GMT -4
I don't see why some people even bother asking Brian O' Leary about the moon landings anymore.
When you look at his interview on the Fox special it becomes evident that it was very easy for the producers to take him out of context and make it sound like he was doubting the moon landings.
I feel it is possible O' Leary may have said those exact words in the interview but it was his expression that was altered in the process.
It was probably easy to take those quotes and place them at the point where O' Leary was talking about something else he had serious doubts over.
But what difference does it make? Of course he would say he can't be "100%" sure that man has landed on the moon. No one can be except for the astronauts themselves but the moon hoaxers are a minority so its easy to see how the evidence is overwhelming.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 6, 2011 20:49:13 GMT -4
Ah! So when it suits the HBs they point to Dr O'Leary, but when he clarifies he was not supporting them they suddenly say he doesn't matter.
Wow - I didn't see that coming.
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Mar 8, 2011 12:54:39 GMT -4
Hi: I suspected that it would happen. The most active edits to Brian’s Wikipedia bio have been regarding the moon hoax issue. I originally produced the language that was already there, and put it in the “frontiers of science” section of his bio: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_O%27Leary#The_Frontiers_of_ScienceOne of the first changes that an editor made was to give the moon hoax issue its own section. Sigh. Then another editor wiped out the reference to Clavius, citing Jay’s evidence as a “poorly sourced allegation.” I did not want to engage in edit wars, and asked Brian what to do. He read the Clavius page and decided to make his “final word” on the moon landings issue: www.ahealedplanet.net/brianbio.htm#statementI can’t link to my site from Wikipedia, as it would be even more “poorly sourced” than Jay’s site, although both sites have been linked from Wikipedia on other issues. So, I am looking for a place that will publish Brian’s “final statement” that the “editors” will not dismiss. The editors might even deny Brian’s final statement because it is a first person statement, even though the entire moon hoax issue, regarding Brian, is about what he thinks. I have had plenty of crazy interaction with Wikipedia before: www.ahealedplanet.net/wikimass.htmso I am not looking forward to this chore. If anybody has any suggestions where I can get Brian’s “last statement” published where it cannot be easily dismissed by Wikipedia “editors,” I will gratefully take it. Thanks, Wade
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Mar 8, 2011 22:22:37 GMT -4
I am disappointed in him.
His "final word" is nothing but waffling and dodging.
He says he wants to "focus on what we need to do NOW about our pressing global problems..." but many of the problems he cites are rooted in the anti-science movement for which the Apollo Hoax has been a gateway issue for many people.
As a "competent scientist", he has a duty to go with the evidence. By taking an agnostic position, he is effectively giving the same weight to unsubstantiated hear-say that he is to the massive historical record.
His statement that he has' "...chosen not to take the time to do the research needed to form an authoritative opinion." is nothing but a cop-out. The rest of us here on ApolloHoax hold-down jobs and have commitments, too. The time it takes to reach this particular issue is not onerous.
If he is really so determined to save the world, he's going to need to find the courage to stand-up to the manipulative and self-aggrandizing demagogues who subvert the scientific process and who lead people to make & support policy based on who shouts loudest, rather than on reasoned consideration of the facts.
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Mar 9, 2011 0:11:20 GMT -4
Hi Count Zero: You are entitled to your disappointment, and I have mixed feeling about this whole issue. Brian regrets ever getting involved with it, as he states. But somebody who does not even use their real name does not get to credibly challenge Brian’s courage. How many murder attempts have you survived because you put your butt out there publicly, where it could get shot off? Most playing at Brian’s level have survived at least one, if they survived at all: www.ahealedplanet.net/journey.htm#mallovewww.ahealedplanet.net/paradigm.htm#tacticsBrian had to agree to be willing go to Mars in his astronaut interview: www.ahealedplanet.net/brianbio.htm#marsCourage he has, in spades. I have some understanding of why he has taken the position that he has on the moon landings. I am not happy about it, but I respect it. Best, Wade
|
|