|
Post by PeterB on Feb 18, 2010 7:21:05 GMT -4
McGowan has been operating his web page for at least 10 years now, and during that time he's also published three books, and covered a wide range of topics including: 9-11 false flag, inside job evidence; CIA mind control techniques employed on behalf of serial murderers and satanic cults; the corruption of academic psychology by corporate and government funding; the increasing commonality between the two major US political parties; and many other topics including (most recently) his Laurel Canyon series, showing the extent to which 1960's pop culture was controlled by the military-industrial complex. With this sustained effort, Dave has slowly developed a small but dedicated audience. And he has never shied away from controversy. Good for him, though I note that two of his three books are self-published. The last two self-published books I read were of poor quality, so what conclusions might I reach about his? Based on what I've read of what he's written about Apollo, this is because he's made a lot of mistakes. Well, attitude is no substitute for evidence and knowledge. He brought it on himself. Yet there are plenty of us here who have both no relevant technical skills and aren't American. It's not hard for people without formal qualifications in the relevant technical skills to learn enough about Apollo to tell what's real from what isn't. And those of us who aren't American have no personal stake in defending the US Government - we're happy just to look at the facts. I've been interested in space and rockets since I was very young. I remember borrowing books about space travel from the primary school library when I was in no more than Year 3. This interest became more involved when I joined the Australian Skeptics in the late 1990s, so I've learned a lot about Apollo and hoax theories. It interests me more than the other topics you've mentioned. Anyway, you could ask the JFK Lone Nutters why they're so interested in debunking JFK conspiracy theories when there's so many Apollo Hoax theories to deal with... Most people would say, "When the last skeptic (sic) leaves the field, there'll be no more need for this web-site." To use a baseball analogy, you don't go out to bat in the bottom of the ninth if you're ahead. The fact that you ask such a question makes me wonder that you're attracted to such conspiracy theories because you see threats and enemies where they don't exist. Sadly, though, based on your assessment of Dave's adoring following, there's still a need for this site. Perhaps you could encourage them and Dave to come over here. I'm not going to hold my breath. Possibly in terms of volume. Certainly not in terms of quality or attitude. It's a bit rich for you to grumble about our vehemence when compared with Dave's smug ignorance. Yet Dave felt confident enough to wade in, keyboard blazing. He either didn't do his research, or he did, but thought he knew more than the rest of us anyway. Either way, he's made himself look pretty silly. Or perhaps his profile is so small that no one relevant has noticed him. This may be indicated by his unwillingness to come out of his electronic castle and engage in open debate about Apollo. Yes, people who believe one conspiracy theory tend to believe them all. I see no need to bother with 9/11 or JFK conspiracies because there are plenty of people better qualified to deal with them than me. Unlike Dave McGowan, apparently, I'm fairly aware of my limits.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 18, 2010 7:38:46 GMT -4
In any conspiracy model, it's important that as few people as possible would know. Apollo Hoax theories fail from both ends - there's no evidence for a hoax, and no evidence of a need for a hoax. And what of the Soviets? The Soviets would have had a field day if they'd been able to show the Americans had faked Apollo. It would have been a propaganda disaster of the first order for the USA. Or is Dave of the school that the Cold War was faked too? I don't think reality is boring. Do you? I'll be disappointed if you're banned for that, but why are you his stalking horse? Can't he debate for himself?
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Feb 18, 2010 7:51:54 GMT -4
...the neat thing about knowledge is that you can give it away, and still have it... And that's a very neat statement. Neater still, the very process of giving away knowledge ensures that you automatically acquire more -- and if not about that particular subject, then some other one.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Feb 18, 2010 8:24:10 GMT -4
Have to agree with that ... as a Brit who is far more concerned with what his own government might do than what goes on in the USA.
The problem with laypeople (McGowan and others) wading into the situation and calling "fraud" is that Apollo is, by its very nature, rocket science. It doesn't conform to common sense, and in many ways is counter-intuitive (who would guess that the way to ensure one spacecraft catches up with another in orbit is to make it go more slowly, for example?). That means that a layperson, without knowledge and training in the underlying scientific principles, cannot be relied on to recognise reality from fraud when they see it.
It might look wrong to them, and they might genuinely have doubts because they are relying on an inadequate understanding of the issues, but continuing to shout "fraud" when it can be easily shown by those who do have that underlying knowledge is just sheer bloody-mindedness.
Their lack of knowledge about Apollo and space flight in general isn't their fault, and can be rectified ... or simply lived with. Basing a critique of the Apollo moon landings on that lack of knowledge is their fault, but can also be rectified if they are open to learn the reality of the science. Continuing to cry "fraud" in the face of the science, however, shows that they don't want to open their minds to the reality of the science and are happy to live in their own little deluded bubble.
And it really wouldn't be worth the time and effort expended here and elsewhere if that was the beginning and ending of it. Unfortunately, because rocket science is so counter intuitive and can't be assumed from common sense, many other laypeople get taken in by these critiques precisely because they appear, on the surface, to make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 18, 2010 8:43:14 GMT -4
So our question is this, and it's an essay question, not a technical question: why is this so important to you? It's an area in which I have an interest and some expertiese and knowledge. I have been interested in space and space travel since I was old enough to read about it. My focus is on this conspiracy theory mainly because this is the one I feel most qualified to discuss in any great detail. I do sometimes wander in to other conspiracy discussions, but (unlike a lot of HBs) if I lack the relevant knowledge I remain quiet.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 18, 2010 9:05:16 GMT -4
In any conspiracy model, it's important that as few people as possible would know. Indeed it is. A while ago I made a thread either here on or BAUT involving a thought experiment for who would absolutely need to know. The list just keeps getting longer and longer the more you think about it, and with that increase in length come a decrease in the chance that every single one of them kept quiet for so long. By the time Nixon was elected Apollo was working. It had not met its goal of landing on the Moon but it was well on the way. Right, so that's a whole group of people making fake telemetry, then finding some way to fool not only Mission Control in Houston but the major tracking stations around the world that received the communications from the Moon and would therefore know from where the signals were coming. And for the video and film they'd have to depressurise it. There is no evidence that any such structure has ever existed, so if it does then some serious 'buying off' of people must have taken place to conceal such a massive construction project. Indeed, and again a whole group of people who need to know that the whole thing is faked. Naturally. That's 24 men in all the manned Apollo flights. I don't think it would. You presume they are so patriotic that they will dishonourably cover up a lie for their country's honour. Oh yes they could. The Saturn V was a well-tested piece of hardware. The lack of understanding about testing methods among HB's is astounding. Many of them seem to believe they built a huge rocket, filled it full of explosive fuel, sat three astronauts in it and lit it off trusting to luck. By the time the first men entered cislunar space there was a wealth of data about the radiation environment. Many satellites had been sent up specifically for that purpose. A number of unmanned Surveyor craft had landed on the Moon and recorded radaition data as well as other things. Again, the HB mindset that seems to think they sent the astronauts out without doing any testing whatsoever. It is, and to every single person who worked on the project. It wasn't seriously intended to look like a space vehicle, it was seriously intended to be a space vehicle. Looks were the consequence of its functionality. The big problem with that is that if engineers are given the task of building working hardware they do just that. If they don't know it's supposed to be fake they provide you with something that will do the job for real. If you have that, why fake it in the first place? The idea of most people being unaware it was faked relies on a total disregard for any idea of how human beings have actually evolved to be such effective social creatures. We are not a bunch of mindless drones blindly following orders. The process of disparate companies working together to design and build a spacecraft and launch system absolutely requires intimate exchange of information and expertise. You cannot just give a blueprint to a group of engineers and tell them to build it, because their expertise will allow them to see if there is any disparity between what they are told the thing is for and what they can see it will actually be capable of. You could no more fool the engineers at Grumman into believing they were making a working LM with fake blueprints than you could fool me into believing a seive will successfully filter red blood cels from a blood sample. You said earlier that McGowan admits to coming to this from a layman's perspective. Well that's fine. Not everyone has the technical expertise. The problem we have is his basing his whole case on that layman's perspective as if that level of understanding is all he needs to pronounce judgment on a technological achievement. It absolutely is not, and his pages upon pages of argument from incredulity are so absurd to anyone who does/i] have the requisite knowledge that we probably wouldn't give them the time of day if it were not for one thing:
Not everyone does have that level of knowledge, and many people can be swayed by the style of argument he uses. For ignorance to reign only requires the knowledgable to stay silent. I refuse to stay silent and see ignorance of that level spread. Frankly I find it offensive when someone is so abusive and insulting (as you say, the idea of a hoax is an insult to astronauts and engineers) from nothing but ignorance, and I will do all I can to prevent the spread of that ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Feb 18, 2010 9:18:07 GMT -4
Like several people here, I'm a space enthusiest. And I see Apollo as one of the top accomplishments in manned space flight.
I see the hoax believers as polluters of human culture. Note that I say human culture, not American. Apollo was an achievement that captured the imagination of the whole world. And hoax believers belittle it.
Hoax believers encourage ignorance and paranioa, whether they admit it or not. They do not encourage critical thinking, which is desperately needed in today's world.
Hoax believers simply want their claims to be accepted. They appearently throw their own sort of tantrums when people actually put their claims to the test (as evidenced by their reactions to the 'Mythbusters' special, as well as their attitude to Mr. Windley and Dr. Plait).
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Feb 18, 2010 9:53:26 GMT -4
So our question is this, and it's an essay question, not a technical question: why is this so important to you? Why choose to focus on this particular conspiracy theory, rather than, say, the JFK assassination, or the Murrah Center - Oklahoma City bombings, or 911, or perhaps something more recent like the Fruit-of-the-Kaboom Bomber? I guess I'm the odd man out, in that I don't particularly care what you or McGowan think. But, any particular reason not to emphasize this one? If the website were about the JFK assassination, would someone be asking why that one is so important, and why the board isn't about Apollo hoax theories instead? I come here because I'm interested in spaceflight. I think it would be sufficient to point out to the astronauts that at the height of the cold war, it was essential for national security for the hoax to succeed. I guess I'm not clear on how faking moon landings is supposed to increase the security of the country.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 18, 2010 10:38:02 GMT -4
After reading these replies, it is clear most of us are here primarily because our interest in space flight and the Apollo missions and secondarily because of an interest in defending what we believe to be an important human achievements from cultural vandals. In other words we are a community that come together through our common interest where we benefit from one anothers input. We even benefit from the hoax believers, because in responding to each new crank "theory" that comes up for discussion builds the knowledge base of all.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 18, 2010 12:03:17 GMT -4
After reading these replies, it is clear most of us are here primarily because our interest in space flight and the Apollo missions and secondarily because of an interest in defending what we believe to be an important human achievements from cultural vandals. That is certainly the case for me. I started working on my webpage five years before I first heard of the alleged moon landing hoax. The goal of my work was to share my interest in space flight, not to debunk some crank conspiracy theory. Defending Apollo is actually a distraction that takes me away from what I really want to do. In fact, my “moon hoax” page is in need of some updating, but I’m tired of spending any more effort on it. The parts of my page that I’m most proud of are the sections on rocket propulsion and orbital mechanics, but far and away the most hits and emails I receive are about the moon hoax theory. I find it very disappointing that that is what gets the most attention. We even benefit from the hoax believers, because in responding to each new crank "theory" that comes up for discussion builds the knowledge base of all. You can say that again. Case in point: my work on Apollo 11’s Translunar Trajectory that was born out of discussions started in this thread. By working through the problem I learned much about the Apollo trajectories and sharpened my skills in orbital mechanics. I found the whole exercise interesting, educational, fun, and I’m better off for it. I’m generally board to tears with debates over what an HB thinks is a “funny looking” detail in some photograph. I usually let others deal with those discussions because my input is no better (and often times worse) than what others can offer. But when the discussions come around to technical details having to do with the rockets, spacecraft or trajectories, that’s when I jump in. These are the things that interest me and about which I have good knowledge and expertise. As I said earlier, I pick my battles – I’m not here to debate everything. The great thing about this forum is that collectively we have a great deal of knowledge and expertise in many areas having to do with Apollo. No one individual knows everything (though Jay comes the close), but we do a good job of pooling our knowledge. None of the regulars here pretends to know more than he/she really does – we know our limitations and are honest about it. We happily learn from each other for our own betterment. Sadly, I can’t say the same about the HB crowd.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 18, 2010 12:24:22 GMT -4
There is always Jason. Hey! If I were a little thinner-skinned I might go on for the next five pages about how there's a moderation problem on this board. I am here because these guys know their stuff, and Apollo is the greatest acheivement to this point in a fascinating subject - manned space travel. I've learned a great deal about Apollo that I didn't know before by regularly perusing these boards, and consider that valuable. The crowd on this forum is for the most part educated and polite, and that can make arguing with them on things like Global Warming, politics, and religion interesting and useful (to me at least) as well. It's just a good forum with low enough traffic that I can keep up with it.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 18, 2010 13:50:48 GMT -4
It's just a good forum with low enough traffic that I can keep up with it. And a high signal to noise ratio.
|
|
|
Post by porphyry on Feb 18, 2010 14:02:44 GMT -4
Hello everyone,
Thanks for your replies.
I do understand that at an Apollo board, it's no surprise to find people who are interested in Apollo. But beyond just BAUT and here, David says this topic has created a level of traffic & interest that he's never seen before. I think it's a measure of the level of popular interest -- as well as probably an indicator that David has angered people by being wrong at a level beyond anything he's managed before.
When thinking about the Apollo missions, perhaps it's to be expected that different people are going to have differing thoughts about the burden of proof, and the standard of evidence required to support a position.
A criminal courtroom model might contemplate Nixon, von Braun, and their associates on trial for fraud -- and require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that a hoax was perpetrated.
A civil-damages model might look at the preponderance of evidence available either way, and weigh all the available data to render a judgment. Or, a Bayesian probability model might try to assess P(Hoax) as a numeric value.
A point of view that I would insist on describing as "skeptical" would say that the moon landing is an Extraordinary Claim requiring Extraordinary Evidence. To this last way of thinking, any legitimate, reasonable doubt represents a valid reason to embrace the hoax theory and reject the Apollo claims. And furthermore, among the voting public, each individual has the sovereign right to make his own determination about what is a "reasonable doubt" from their own point of view.
It seems to me that the evidence of the Apollo missions is so overwhelming as to meet this skeptical level of opposition -- that the claims are indeed supported by Extraordinary Evidence which is Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt, as anyone who puts in the time can verify. But, understanding and explaining this evidence is not so easy -- and I would say to you members of this board: it is a matter of education and information; and an arrogant and dismissive attitude towards "HB"'s is not helpful, rather it encourages psychological resistance.
After sleeping on it, and reading all your replies to my question... I've decided there's not much benefit to be won by making any further arguments on behalf of a conspiracy model that I don't believe in, and which is different from the conspiracy model McGowan is advocating.
But I do have a few questions towards the goal of improving my understanding, or resolving questions McGowan raised on the phone with me.
McGowan doesn't like to participate in online forums, but I think he does sometimes follow what people are saying, and eventually he responds on his website. I hope that there will be some material change in his position.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 18, 2010 14:39:49 GMT -4
A point of view that I would insist on describing as "skeptical" would say that the moon landing is an Extraordinary Claim requiring Extraordinary Evidence.
Good thing there is extraordinarily proof available. McGowan and other HBs either don't want too read it or can't understand it. There is no reasonable doubt. Leading tho you next point.
To this last way of thinking, any legitimate, reasonable doubt represents a valid reason to embrace the hoax theory and reject the Apollo claims.
A good description of the HB mentality and entirely the opposite of a search for knowledge. Reasonable doubt only leads to reasonable doubt, not to an alternative hypothesis. Embracing a hoax assumes there is evidence of a hoax. Evidence that no one has been able to produce. HBs are just making it up for there own personal reasons. I'll leave it to you as an exercise to determine what those reasons may be.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 18, 2010 14:57:16 GMT -4
I think it's a measure of the level of popular interest...Yes, and of a particular kind of interest. Let's say none of the CIA-related conspiracy theories are true, for the sake of argument. Even so, who's going to rise to defend the CIA? JFK, Oklahoma City, 9/11 -- these are all fundamentally about tragedy. People want to believe there was something nefarious about them. It's difficult to accept that a beloved president was simply murdered by a nobody, that a building full of innocent people was blown up by a disgruntled soldier, or that a bunch of foreign terrorists attacked a major city. At some level people are prepared to believe that something evil and sinister lies behind them. However Apollo presents itself as a triumph. At a time of great social and political upheaval, a group of people did something extraordinary and unprecedented through the power of sheer will. When you start crapping all over something people have come to feel proud of, you anger them. ...David has angered people by being wrong at a level beyond anything he's managed before.Few people know about or are interested in techniques of espionage, mind-control, or assassination. But lots of people know about photography, astronomy, engineering, and other disciplines having to do with Apollo. A lucky few of us even get to call it our profession. It's hard to pull the wool over so many eyes. What incites people most is, as I said, the combination of ignorance and arrogance. Either one would be acceptable. I'm often accused of arrogance, but it comes from a position of knowledge. I may come off as arrogant, but I'm rarely wrong. Being ignorant too is acceptable, as long as one is willing to be tentative in one's conclusions. To arrogantly oppose what so many justifiably know to be true legitimately engenders mockery and scorn. A point of view that I would insist on describing as "skeptical" would say that the moon landing is an Extraordinary Claim requiring Extraordinary Evidence.For which substantial evidence has been provided. What do you think you, McGowan, and all the other hoax theorists have been frantically trying to explain away for 30 years? To this last way of thinking, any legitimate, reasonable doubt represents a valid reason to embrace the hoax theory and reject the Apollo claims.No. Any reasonable doubt might be reason to reject the commonly-accepted story. But it utterly fails to give a reason to embrace any hoax theory. Why? Because the hoax theory is an affirmative alternative to explaining the evidence. Any such affirmation creates its own burden of proof. This is where the hoax-believer mentality rears its ugly head. Hoax believers set up their hoax theory (or the abstract prototype of it) as some sort of default that must hold if the official story cannot be proven down to the smallest iota. They fail to see that their own proposition is also an extraordinary claim for which extraordinary proof must be provided. The 800 pounds of alleged Moon rocks sitting in Houston is a fact. That is, the existence and observable nature of that material is beyond question. One explanation says it came from the Moon via human astronauts. Another explanation says it was obtained elsewhere or manufactured. One of those explanations is heavily documented and attested. The other has never risen above speculation for 30 years. The radio tracking data is a fact. It can be explained either by Apollo spacecraft traveling to the Moon, or by some other affirmed claim that has yet to be adequately defined or tested. All the evidence on this point too establishes the Apollo proposition, and none supports the hoax alternative. And on and on and on... There is no such rational thing as the presumption of fakery. Any claim must provide evidence. Every hoax believer I've seen labors under this delusion and bias. They simply cannot accept that their belief is an affirmative claim that has any sort of burden of proof. Hence their only method is the same feeble, fallacious indirect argument that you've outlined. There's a reason why that mode of argument has been considered wrong since Aristotle's time. The real problem with "the" hoax theory is that there isn't one. There is no testable proposition that is agreed upon as the likely story. There is only vague speculation about how this or that point of evidence may have been fabricated. If you want people to embrace "the" hoax theory, give them an actual proposition to embrace -- not just vague speculation. But fundamentally you can't ask someone to embrace a theory -- concrete or abstract -- unless you give them reasons for that theory. You can't, and neither can McGowan. You don't have any line of reasoning for why "the" hoax theory is the best explanation. All you have is vague attempts to undermine some other theory. That's not how affirmative claims are supported. But, understanding and explaining this evidence is not so easy -- and I would say to you members of this board: it is a matter of education and information...Indeed, and that is fundamentally the responsibility of each individual who wants to be educated and informed. We have led you to the water, but you seem reluctant to drink. There is an orgy of information on Apollo available online to anyone who wants it, and a further orgy to serious researchers who are willing to expend time and resources to become top experts. The hoax-believers are the ones that have to be dragged kicking and screaming to authoritative and correct sources of information. It's not their critics' fault that the hoax-believers are so stubborn. ...and an arrogant and dismissive attitude towards "HB"'s is not helpful...Excuse me? Who is being arrogant and dismissive here? I offered to engage McGowan in a serious dialogue about his claims, and he told me in no uncertain terms what to do about it. It was the kind of answer I'd expect from a 13-year-old. At BAUT steps are taken to make sure everyone gets a fair shake. Most of the threads on the front page are currently locked, with warnings issued to the regulars who have failed to maintain sufficient decorum and focus. Similar, though more lenient, standards prevail here. David McGowan called me out by name, criticized my statements, ignored where I had already debunked his claims, and then flagrantly rejected any sort of interactive dialogue. He continues to invoke my name and taunt me, but he will not engage me. I think you have a vastly delusional notion of who is being arrogant and dismissive in this case. But I do have a few questions towards the goal of improving my understanding, or resolving questions McGowan raised on the phone with me.Go ahead. But please be reminded that you have been directed to a number of excellent free resources on Apollo questions. Spend some time and get to know the evidence. McGowan doesn't like to participate in online forums, but I think he does sometimes follow what people are saying, and eventually he responds on his website.Unfortunately that comes across as cowardice. He does not demonstrate the willingness to be questioned about his assertions. That's intellectual dishonesty. He does read BAUT, and I assume he'll likely read this site too, if he doesn't already. He cherry-picks a few responses from these forums and pretends to address them. He also taunts those participants. But other BAUT posters have noticed that McGowan silently alters his site to remove claims that are conclusively debunked, without any comment to that effect from him. In other words, I feel David McGowan is engaging in a thoroughly dishonest manner of "debate." His actions are consistent more with saving face than with exploring the authenticity of Apollo. I question your motives for defending him.
|
|