|
Post by dwight on Oct 18, 2010 13:37:38 GMT -4
I know gillianren, it just amazes me how we do all the work for them. Having said that, I guess we are the only ones who will do the job of research properly. Then again JW reads a flight plan and he gets a red carpet and fireworks show from his hanger-oners. We do in depth investigation with a plausible outcome and are branded liars. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 18, 2010 13:53:49 GMT -4
I think Jay's right; I think it's in part because they don't really know anything about history. "We don't have a clear explanation because there isn't enough documentation" makes sense to people who know what the real state of historical documentation often is. To the HB mind, any major event should have had every paper clip saved, whereas we know that there are events of which all we have is third-hand accounts and piecing together based on what we know about other things. No, that's seldom true of modern events, but you don't have to go back very far for it to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 18, 2010 13:57:35 GMT -4
Then again JW reads a flight plan and he gets a red carpet and fireworks show from his hanger-oners. Jarrah and 'reads' in the same sentence. I never thought I'd live to see that construct. I thought he got other people to do his reading given the hash he makes every time words are put in front of him. ;D There have been some very interesting scenarios put forward in this thread, each quite plausible. That is what sets us aside from the hoax crowd I guess. The ability to offer alternative reasons. I always laugh when the hoaxers crow about their critical reasoning skills. Yet it seems they have already decided that the wood is the damning evidence. Critical reasoning, my backside. Pre-conceived conclusions, deceit and dishonesty more like. I still think the fact that the sample is so much bigger than all the others that were presented points to a mix up. The card looks like it was an invite to an event rather than a label. The most obvious pointer is the colour of the rock. One would think that if the conspirators went to all the trouble of dressing the sound stage with grey rocks and dust, then they'd have gone to the trouble of getting a fake gift rock correct. I guess the parallel universe where the CTers live is something I'll never understand.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 18, 2010 14:40:11 GMT -4
It's frustrating. I like to figure things out, but the darn data won't sit still.Of course it's frustrating. That's what makes the study of history more involved and important than just "chaps and maps." And more difficult. Amateur historians, including conspiracy theorists, UFO fanatics, and the like, simply throw up their hands and cry foul when the going gets tough. Real historians develop judgment and skill in navigating the shifting and fragmentary landscape of available evidence. And the practice of science is also beset by ordinary inconsistency in the data. Hence the difference between a professional scientist and an amateur scientist lies in one's ability to understand ordinary error in observation. And to account and control for it. Amateurs base their expectations simplistic (and often erroneous) models. "But we learned in school that..." begins most of the defenses for those methods. Yes, that's what you learned in school -- you learned the basics, without all of the niggling pesky details of how something is accomplished in the real world. Only if one pursues science well into college does he encounter the means by which science addresses the realities of its data sets. Until then he works within the luxury of antiseptically selective data, simple experiments, and broadly forgiving expectations. The professional historian or scientist knows what to do when observation becomes inconsistent or runs counter to his expectations. He begins a systematic, well-organized, empirically-directed search for the cause of the discrepancy. He doesn't immediately attribute it to Red Lectroids.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 18, 2010 15:01:53 GMT -4
The professional historian or scientist knows what to do when observation becomes inconsistent or runs counter to his expectations. He begins a systematic, well-organized, empirically-directed search for the cause of the discrepancy. He doesn't immediately attribute it to Red Lectroids.lol... great post AND an obscure Buckaroo Banzai reference t'boot... Cz
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 18, 2010 15:22:16 GMT -4
Real historians develop judgment and skill in navigating the shifting and fragmentary landscape of available evidence. Good post Jay. One of the most impressive historical accounts ever made was that of the Eastern front during World War 2. Given the Soviet archives were virtually closed to the West, the picture painted by historians is remarkably accurate. Once the wall came down and the Soviet Bloc fell apart, a few new nuggets came out of the woodwork. In reality, those nuggets filled in some of the gaps that existed in what was already a remarkable account pieced together by historians. What I find amazing about the whole Apollo hoax theory, is quite often the answers are quite simple because the things that tell us the answers are well understood physical sciences with precise mathematical frameworks - much easier than piecing together history. It seems the art of the hoax theorist is to find something they cannot quite explain and then say it is common sense that it must be a fraud. The radiation argument is a good example of this, where it is simple to say that it must common sense that the astronauts could not survive because we only have to look at the Hiroshima survivors, or the Apollo missions occurred during a solar maximum. The real step, as we all know, is to actually understand what the particle flux is, understand that the particles that describe the flux have different energies, look up the materials we are interested in and perform the computation. Even a sanity check with back of cigarette packet calculations shows us that the hoax argument is on very thin ice. It seems that it is easier to hand wave and speculate rather than conduct the mathematics which will lead to the correct answer. That is why this 'wooden rock' is so important as it shows the hoax proponents have already decided it supports their theory, rather than actually working out if there is enough merit for it to support their theory in the first instance.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 18, 2010 15:23:45 GMT -4
The card looks to me to actually be part of an invitation.Possibly, since it identifies a specific date and place. It appears to have been lithographically printed, which would make sense only for something intended to appear in reasonably large numbers -- say more than 100. So it would be reasonable to consider this a mass-produced item of which this example survives. For more singular documents, calligraphy is the traditional means of inscription, as here it would have the diplomatic value of a minor lettre patent, which are still calligraphed to this day and which often bear an official seal in their more flowery incarnations. "With the compliments of..." is a formula ubiquitous in diplomatic writing. Any time something is communicated to someone else, it is "with the compliments" of the diplomat in charge, regardless of whether he actually produced it. The workaday appearance of this card is not consistent with the formal diplomatic presentation of a singular gift to a head of state or national entity.
|
|
|
Post by slang on Oct 18, 2010 15:41:03 GMT -4
Yes, I realize that. I just didn't find it necessary to say that, alomng with other items deemed historically valuable, the family donated this rock to the museum. No worries, I wasn't arguing with you, just adding whatever I found when I poked around a bit when this story popped up. Thanks for adding the links to the museum website. Not to put a downer on things but why are we doing the research for the HB camp? So true.. Why indeed? I suppose because a) it's fun, b) they don't, and c) certainly in my case: because this particular piece of HB nonsense happens to originate in my country. I even acquired the Museum art magazine that has the story in it, with a nice photograph. And I usually don't even like art.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Oct 18, 2010 16:33:09 GMT -4
One of the problems is that a lot of the news archives haven't been digitised yet. I remember seeing the astronauts taking a boot tour in a documentary programme, but I can't find the clip. Apparently the burgomaster is about to hand over yet another commemorative medallion. And the tall guy is definitely Middendorf. Practically every second of that visit must have been photographed by somebody, but I find only a few dozens at best. We need to entice a journalist to dig into this. That is what sets us aside from the hoax crowd I guess. The ability to offer alternative reasons. I always laugh when the hoaxers crow about their critical reasoning skills. Yet it seems they have already decided that the wood is the damning evidence. Critical reasoning, my backside. Pre-conceived conclusions, deceit and dishonesty more like. Hoaxists start with the presumption of guilt. Any factoid that can't be explained to their liking is therefore considered evidence of a hoax. Appeal to ignorance is their only mode of reasoning, and that's why they are always trying to shift the burden of proof. NASA = Guilty! unless you proof otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 18, 2010 16:59:43 GMT -4
- The museum did call NASA to try and get some verification of the rock and were told that while it was possible, only samples from later Apollo missions were given out in the early 1970's. Apparently the museum did no other followup. The Rijksmuseum is an art museum. They probably don't authenticate very many things outside of art. The info-person they talked to at NASA probably didn't even know the astronauts went on a Goodwill tour before the phone call. It's probably the same info-person who constantly refers me to the NTRS, even after I've told them I've already checked there. For all we know it could have been a secretary or a janitor.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 18, 2010 17:02:41 GMT -4
Not to put a downer on things but why are we doing the research for the HB camp? Because the only thing we know for sure is they won't.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Oct 18, 2010 17:46:39 GMT -4
The radiation argument is a good example of this, where it is simple to say that it must common sense that the astronauts could not survive because we only have to look at the Hiroshima survivors, or the Apollo missions occurred during a solar maximum. The real step, as we all know, is to actually understand what the particle flux is, understand that the particles that describe the flux have different energies, look up the materials we are interested in and perform the computation. And it is only in the 21st century we can start to use the data from Hiroshima & Nagasaki survivors to determine the long term effects of radiation exposure. (I'd better watch the use of that phrase 'long term'; I know Turbonium keeps on linking the Apollo missions and reports talking about increased shielding needs for long duration spaceflight.)
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 18, 2010 20:14:36 GMT -4
And it is only in the 21st century we can start to use the data from Hiroshima & Nagasaki survivors to determine the long term effects of radiation exposure. And whether that data can be extrapolated for the Apollo astronauts would be a difficult job as these effects are related to long term stochastic effects rather than short term deterministic effects (I think that is the correct terminology). I really do wish the likes of Jarrah White and some of his cohorts would take a look at the NIST database, and then come back and tell me that the CM would have been breached by the millions upon millions of deadly particles they talk of.
|
|
|
Post by photobuster919 on Jan 6, 2011 19:19:30 GMT -4
I think that eventually Jarrah will have to join this forum.
I actually wouldn't mind, just so we will finally have a chance to debate with him properly.
Its always a mystery to me that the one man who is addicted to the moon conspiracy more than anyone else, just uses this site to mine for quotes.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 6, 2011 22:34:34 GMT -4
I don't think he ever will, and I don't think there would ever be a real debate even if he did.
|
|