|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 2, 2005 18:04:37 GMT -4
Which got me thinking - does anyone on this site have a particular motivation for their stance on these things?
I want to see the record set straight. I see a lot of people misrepresenting Apollo and space exploration in general for their own greedy purposes. Morally I disapprove of deception for commercial purposes. Scientifically I disapprove of the spreading of false information.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 2, 2005 18:34:18 GMT -4
An "anomaly" is a deviation from expectation. To define something as anomalous requires a justification of the expectation against which it is to be measured. Naive, simplistic, or factually bankrupt expectations are not suitable yardsticks against which to discover an anomaly.
If your case is based largely on nothing more than that there are anomalies and there shouldn't be, then you have the burden of proof to show something is anomalous. That is not satisfied merely by your personal inability to explain it, or even on a general inability to explain it. Since all photographs contain features that cannot be identified or explained on the basis of the photo alone, arguing a specific theory from some abstract notion of "anomaly" is extremely shaky.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 2, 2005 22:52:31 GMT -4
Which got me thinking - does anyone on this site have a particular motivation for their stance on these things? Be honest now, if you can..... Well, I belong to the Skeptics. It’s a small group, but affiliated with a number of similar groups around Australia and the world. As a kid I’d always been interested in rockets and space travel, though I don’t remember Apollo specifically (I was 2 during Apollo 11). But after joining the Skeptics I helped organise stalls in which we’d hand out pamphlets discussing various beliefs and the Skeptics’ view of them (astrology, creationism, water divining, reincarnation, and so on). At one of these stalls I was introduced to an on-line science forum (Dr Karl’s Self Service Science Forum at www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/). At the forum I noticed that one of the questions often asked by new people was whether the Moon landings were faked, usually prompted by that Fox show (which I still haven’t seen). It was a whole new field to explore, and I quickly worked out that the fakery arguments were of poor quality. I wrote a pamphlet for the Skeptics which discussed the Moon Hoax and how its arguments could be debunked. This later turned into a four-page article in the Australian “Skeptic” magazine, of which I’m quite proud. And as a result of that interest, I became a regular on Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy Board and then this one. And membership of the BABB taught me about the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, which is one of the best sites to learn in depth about Apollo, and that in turn led me to the Apollo Flight Journals. As to my motivation, as I said I'm a Skeptic. I try to judge all concepts and theories on the basis of the evidence. Having decided, on the basis of the evidence, that Apollo is real, I like to educate people who hold the view that Apollo is a fake. But I don't look only at Apollo; all sorts of other misconceptions have my interest too.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 3, 2005 1:53:23 GMT -4
...it is anomalous objects that I have requested alternative explanations for... See, that presents a problem. You see these "anomalies", I don't. It is therefore up to you to provide evidence that these supposed "anomalies" actually exist. I never said otherwise, so please don't assume that I did. I'm looking for alternate explanations on what I see as anomalies. Would you rather I claim they are proof of a hoax without seeking all the alternative explanations?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 3, 2005 2:01:01 GMT -4
See, that presents a problem. You see these "anomalies", I don't. It is therefore up to you to provide evidence that these supposed "anomalies" actually exist. This is a very good point. We had a fellow around here a couple months ago, star I think, who insisted there were anomalies in the backgrounds of the lunar photos. But the problem was this person just couldn't get his mind around the idea of parallax, or how cropping and resizing photos made the background appear artificially larger, etc. The bottom line was the things he was seeing were simply not anomalous. If you, turbonium, think you see an anomaly it is your responsibility to prove it really is anomalous. We are under no obligation to accept your interpretation that something is amiss. Your insistence that the anomaly is self-evident is just begging the question. **big sigh** Do you really need to expound on the previous misreading of my stance and make a mountain out of an imaginary molehill? I've already gone over this ad infinitum - I don't expect you to accept my interpretation, no more than you can expect me to accept your alternative, as being self-evident. I never posted my information as "proof" of anything, and you should well know that as you've seen all my posts from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 3, 2005 2:08:35 GMT -4
It could be worse. turbonium is rather engaging. Do not speak too loudly the words lunar artifacts or speak the name P...r lest ye invoke the hideous presense of HWSNBN. That sounds more than a little condescending - I hope it's not meant that way.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 3, 2005 2:11:11 GMT -4
An "anomaly" is a deviation from expectation. To define something as anomalous requires a justification of the expectation against which it is to be measured. Naive, simplistic, or factually bankrupt expectations are not suitable yardsticks against which to discover an anomaly. If your case is based largely on nothing more than that there are anomalies and there shouldn't be, then you have the burden of proof to show something is anomalous. That is not satisfied merely by your personal inability to explain it, or even on a general inability to explain it. Since all photographs contain features that cannot be identified or explained on the basis of the photo alone, arguing a specific theory from some abstract notion of "anomaly" is extremely shaky. Explained this previously. I hope we can end the multiple replies to the same point.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 3, 2005 2:15:06 GMT -4
Thanks for all the the replies - Kiwi, I knew your background from your link on the Coke bottle, but thx for the reply. I just was interested in why there is such a singular point of view on this, and whether anyone was once a hoax beliver. Thx peter for your detailed background on how you came to this point.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 3, 2005 2:17:18 GMT -4
I've never been a hoax believer. There were, for a while, a few hoax claims I couldn't explain, but once I read an explanation with background, I had no further problems.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Aug 3, 2005 7:30:29 GMT -4
See, that presents a problem. You see these "anomalies", I don't. It is therefore up to you to provide evidence that these supposed "anomalies" actually exist. I never said otherwise, so please don't assume that I did. No "assumption" involved, for in your very next sentence you say... Which was exactly my "point". You see "anomalies" where none exist. You feel that there is a "need" for alternative explanations to "anomalies", yet you haven't demonstrated with ANY evidence that there are any anomalies.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 3, 2005 9:22:07 GMT -4
It could be worse. turbonium is rather engaging. Do not speak too loudly the words lunar artifacts or speak the name P...r lest ye invoke the hideous presense of HWSNBN. That sounds more than a little condescending - I hope it's not meant that way. Well, it was condescending, I suppose. But it's not aimed at you (or margamatix, for that matter). I was referring to a series of threads that happened on BABB some time ago, wherein a guy kept posting these close-up pictures of the lunar surface. He kept insisting that they were actually long-range telescopic views, and identified rocks, bootprints, and the like as "shuttles", "bridges", "domes", etc. He also popped up whenever his name was mentioned on a thread, like some sort of eccentric demon conjured by the mention of his name. People started to use He Who Shall Not Be Named (HWSNBN) to refer to him. His actual handle was "Piper". Oh no! Now I've done it!
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 3, 2005 9:25:04 GMT -4
I think I misunderstood your point. I wasn't trying to be condescending towards you. I don't think much of your conclusions when it comes to Apollo. But I don't have any problem with your posting. By "engaging", I basically meant "fun to talk with".
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 3, 2005 23:52:43 GMT -4
No - I see anomalies'' where you claim no anomalies exist. I did not claim outright that they exist, but I do see anomalies, and have asked for common explanations for them that would rule out what I perceive as anomalies.
No, there is no "need" to disprove anomalies I see, I only have asked for explanations to account for what I see as anomalies. That is all - I don't claim victory if they haven't convinced me with the explanations they have given. I greatly appreciate all the work that the forum members have put into providing information relating to my queries. If I don't agree with their assessments, that is only my personal view on it,.It's certainly not meant to frustrate or anger those members. I don't ignore or reject any info provided for any reason other than if I really don't find it adequately explains the anomalies.
The antenna was a great explanation for the object I saw as being held by a bare hand/arm. But the other things I see as anomalies I haven't been satisfied with by the explanations. It's just my viewpoint, and it's not done to be stubborn or ignore what they may see as obvious and logical explanations. On the opposite side, I have been perplexed by those who can't see what I see as obvious anomalies.So at the end of the day it ultimately reaches an impasse. We agree to disagree, and that's OK by me. It is all still worth the time to discuss the issues, even if some may think it was a waste of their time if I remain unconvinced. It's not meant to waste anybody's time, I assure you.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 3, 2005 23:55:07 GMT -4
That sounds more than a little condescending - I hope it's not meant that way. Well, it was condescending, I suppose. But it's not aimed at you (or margamatix, for that matter). I was referring to a series of threads that happened on BABB some time ago, wherein a guy kept posting these close-up pictures of the lunar surface. He kept insisting that they were actually long-range telescopic views, and identified rocks, bootprints, and the like as "shuttles", "bridges", "domes", etc. He also popped up whenever his name was mentioned on a thread, like some sort of eccentric demon conjured by the mention of his name. People started to use He Who Shall Not Be Named (HWSNBN) to refer to him. His actual handle was "Piper". Oh no! Now I've done it! HAHA! That sounds pretty funny. And no worries, I don't get touchy about these things - I enjoy my discussions on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 3, 2005 23:58:22 GMT -4
I think I misunderstood your point. I wasn't trying to be condescending towards you. I don't think much of your conclusions when it comes to Apollo. But I don't have any problem with your posting. By "engaging", I basically meant "fun to talk with". Agreed - I too don't put too much into many of the opposing conclusions, though I appreciate the time and efforts put towards my queries. And it does provide for engaging conversation.
|
|