|
Post by dickshane on Aug 4, 2010 17:01:52 GMT -4
I see - thanks. Still a pretty bizarre way of putting it, but then I guess we should expect nothing less...
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 4, 2010 17:17:39 GMT -4
Wait--he's back? Where did he go, aside from running away from reasoned debate?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Aug 5, 2010 5:40:15 GMT -4
And I don't disagree with you. Just like fighting other forms of ignorance and stupidity (Racism, sexism, prejudice ...) it's a constant battle. You can't just throw your hands in the air and say, "Already answered that!" But doesn't history tell us that there will always be a hard core of people who will never be swayed by the evidence? I really don't see the hoax theory being so widespread that NASA formally intervening would have much of an impact ... especially since most of those espousing the hoax theories make it quite clear that they aren't prepared to believe a word NASA says on the subject because they have a vested interest in it. Moreover, when NASA did gear up a response, the fuss over spending a measly $15,000 to do so was rapidly shot down as a waste of money by those whose support was necessary to ensure future funding. NASA has sent men to the moon, and put all the evidence out in public for the world to see and examine. All of those who have the knowledge and expertise to assess that evidence agree that it is on the up and up. That appears to be good enough for the vast majority of the world's population. Anyone else, I imagine NASA simply considers irrelevant, and is happy to leave it to other experts - Jay, Phil Plait, etc. - to address the hoax if they see fit to do so.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 5, 2010 9:35:01 GMT -4
Wait--he's back? Where did he go, aside from running away from reasoned debate? Er, didn't he fly over from Australia to TAM at Las Vegas? Presumably he's back in Oz.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 5, 2010 15:31:10 GMT -4
Since they all just know him online, is that a substantial going away?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 5, 2010 16:47:33 GMT -4
I could be wrong, but I think his YouTube channel has said "The Grandson Of The Apollo Hoax Theory IS BACK" ever since his original account was suspended due to copyright violations. That was in 2006.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Aug 5, 2010 23:52:20 GMT -4
I suspect JW might argue that he's a "journalist", and if a court buys that argument (which it might well), the 1st Amendment clause about freedom of the press would trump Nevada law. Not that any state prosecutor is going to waste his time on some crazy Aussie who used a camera in a public place, anyway. Just sayin' I suspect the MythBusters will deal with this in their own way, if and when they think it's an issue to them.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Aug 6, 2010 12:00:18 GMT -4
But doesn't history tell us that there will always be a hard core of people who will never be swayed by the evidence? I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not speaking of Sibrel, Jarrah White, or people like them. They're either complete nut-bars or too far into the hoax financially to get out. I agree trying to sway them would be a waste of time. What wouldn't be a waste of time is trying to sway all those that listen to their nonsense and don't know their is another side to the argument. I really don't see the hoax theory being so widespread that NASA formally intervening would have much of an impact ... Sorry, but I don't agree. As I stated previously, a growing number of our younger generation believes that NASA never went or at least lied to some extent about the landings. When NASA just ignores this, it appears to many in this group that they're hiding something. All it does is give people like Jarrah more ammunition. Moreover, when NASA did gear up a response, the fuss over spending a measly $15,000 to do so was rapidly shot down as a waste of money by those whose support was necessary to ensure future funding. Then I would strongly disagree with those people as well! With the millions and millions NASA spends each year, $15,000 would be a waste of resources in order to address false accusations that have been leveled against the organization over the past 40 years?? Fer cripes sake! My boss just spent over 3 times that amount on paving bricks for our front parking lot. NASA has sent men to the moon, and put all the evidence out in public for the world to see and examine. No disagreement there either! The problem is that the average 18 year old doesn't know where to find that information or what it means even if they did! There's a reason it's referred to as rocket science. This may be a young person that may be trying to decide whether or not to seek a profession in the field of science and/or engineering. Yet, they're being lead to believe this field is full of liars and shady characters paid off by NASA to hide evidence. No - I'm not saying that if they visit one hoax website they're going to think, "That does it, I don't like science!" But I do think that the doubt and distrust can build up over time, especially if a large number of their peers feel the same way. Anyone else, I imagine NASA simply considers irrelevant, and is happy to leave it to other experts - Jay, Phil Plait, etc. - to address the hoax if they see fit to do so. And it's my opinion and the whole point I'm trying to make is that type of thinking is the reason so many believe the hoax in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 6, 2010 12:37:41 GMT -4
Sorry, but I don't agree. As I stated previously, a growing number of our younger generation believes that NASA never went or at least lied to some extent about the landings. Where did this figure come from? I don't believe it, personally, and would like to see a cite.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 6, 2010 13:42:21 GMT -4
As I stated previously, a growing number of our younger generation believes that NASA never went or at least lied to some extent about the landings. When NASA just ignores this, it appears to many in this group that they're hiding something. All it does is give people like Jarrah more ammunition. I agree. Jarrah's basic premise, explicitly stated or implied countless times in his videos, is that anyone who supplies information supporting the reality of the Apollo landings is necessarily a liar. That conveniently excuses him (or so he thinks) from having to actually address the information itself, something he carefully avoids because of his complete lack of the necessary technical background. Instead he makes huge efforts to discredit those sources in any way possible, such as by finding minor discrepancies in unrelated topics or by going off on completely irrelevant tangents. His ambush of Adam Savage on whether he (Adam) knew of pre-Apollo lunar laser experiments is a perfect example. First of all, the reality of the Apollo program does not depend on how much lunar research Adam Savage can recite off the top of his head when he's put on the spot. Second, the success of those prior efforts (e.g., MIT's Luna See) was completely irrelevant to the demonstration conducted for the Mythbusters by the Apache Point Observatory. The question was whether the Apache Point laser -- and no other laser -- can get a return from the moon without an artificial reflector. Before they successfully ranged the Apollo 15 retroreflector the staff conducted a simple control. They tried to range a spot in the lunar highlands where no reflector is present. There was no return. This control showed that, unlike the MIT experiment, Apache Point is designed to use a reflector and it cannot work without one. Jarrah must realize this, or he wouldn't have put the word "Liar?" next to a picture of the staff member at the Observatory who operated the laser system for the Mythbusters. When you directly accuse someone of lying simply for providing information that refutes your case -- not because they are actually lying -- you cross the line. In my personal (layman's) opinion, that's libel. It should be answered. Maybe Jarrah is so firmly ensconced in his belief that Apollo was a hoax that he really and truly believes that anyone who provides information to the contrary must be lying -- somehow. If so, he no longer qualifies as someone dispassionately searching for the truth (if, in fact, he ever did). Nor is he someone who's just gotten a little too enthusiastic in pursuing a pet theory. I think (again as a layman) that he's gone far beyond that and well into delusion territory.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Aug 6, 2010 13:44:22 GMT -4
Where did this figure come from? I don't believe it, personally, and would like to see a cite. I've been trying to find it, but I'll keep digging. I've bought a new computer since I saved the link, and I'm afraid some of my bookmarks ended up in the bit bucket. I do remember that it stated that around 6% of general population believes that the landings were a hoax, but that number increases quite a bit when looking at younger age groups.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 6, 2010 15:22:36 GMT -4
I do remember that it stated that around 6% of general population believes that the landings were a hoax, but that number increases quite a bit when looking at younger age groups. That's a distressingly large number, and I can only hope it's due to benign neglect, i.e., they simply haven't been exposed to the right information. It should be possible to take care of most of that 6% by simply explaining the facts in a methodical, straightforward style as www.clavius.org does. I also think the moon hoax can create opportunities to teach real physics in an entertaining way. Behind just about every hoax claim is a misconception about some particular law of physics, e.g., optics or heat transfer in a vacuum. The hoax claimant creates a dramatic conflict that could interest people who would otherwise find physics boring and dull, and in the process of debunking the claim you can teach them a little bit of physics that just might stick with them later. Some of them might even enjoy the experience enough to start learning on their own. When you're given lemons, try to make lemonade.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Aug 6, 2010 20:06:16 GMT -4
It should be possible to take care of most of that 6% by simply explaining the facts in a methodical, straightforward style as www.clavius.org does.Can't agree more with you here about Clavius. Having had an interest in the American space program since I was a kid, and having studied the subject from slightly more than a "passing interest" standpoint for many years, I was never a hoax believer. When I first read Clavius 5 or so years ago I was impressed at the way Jay explains complex ideas and subjects, and at the same time, humbled by how much I was able to learn from his site (not to mention the people here and from others at UM). Concerning the bolded sentence, I wonder if there will come a day when the Moon Landing Hoax is actually taught in schools as a vehicle for introducing students to "rocket science" subjects and ideas....? Cz
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 6, 2010 20:36:45 GMT -4
I drive a schoolbus...also have taken some courses in orbital mechanics and space systems management. I put pictures in my bus...the LM sitting on the surface with a caption "been there, done that, lets go back!", Saturn launches, airplanes...sometimes it sparks a conversation. I've gotten "I heard it was faked" kind of comments, and just explain the basic science that made it possible. They seem to accept it as real, although practically ancient history to them. Our middle schools have rocket launches in the spring, our local club is involved in a lot of them. We have a presentation that teaches basic "rocket science" and it has sparked a few into real interest in the sciences. It's exasperating to see the hoax sites suckering in the few devoted followers, but I really think their numbers are exaggerated. Consider the few devotees we see on those sites, the regulars, and their anger and flailing. It's the lurkers who, while not jumping into the fray, are hopefully able to see which side the real evidence is on.
I'm cautiously optimistic...the debates will rage, and those silent watchers are there. They are smarter than the profane internet trolls we deal with.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Aug 8, 2010 14:15:08 GMT -4
Where did this figure come from? I don't believe it, personally, and would like to see a cite. I apologize gillianren, I can't seem to find the exact article I saw. I did find this... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theoriesYes, I know it's a wiki page, so take it with a grain of salt, but I tend to believe it. It appears I was mistaken on the age group. I thought it was 18 - 35, it appears from this article that it's 18 -25. Similarly, 25% of Americans between the age of 18 and 25 are not sure the landings happened.Still pretty sad in my opinion.
|
|