|
|
Post by simon39 on Jul 28, 2006 11:07:06 GMT -4
Are there really that many hoax believers out there???
From the evidence I see on this site there are not that many, the few ones who post here have very poor if any arguments and tend to get shot down in flames immediately they post.
Of course they ignore the facts when explained to them but that is another story I think.
Have they all moved onto 911 hoax theories??? Are Apollo hoax theories no longer in vogue???
|
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 28, 2006 11:19:46 GMT -4
The HBs are out there, they just get frustrated I am guessing.
They say "it looks like", we say "here's the science and physics behind what you see". They say "paid shill, sheeple", we say...
"sigh"...
My forehead will do no better than a limited number of impacts with a stone wall...and "they" are the intelligent, open minded, insightful" ones...hmmmmm
...and so it goes.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 28, 2006 12:36:28 GMT -4
There are hoax believers out there, but they very quickly learn which internet institutions to avoid, so you may not see many around here. Or maybe a lot -- whatever. Scientifically controlled polls (albeit quite outdated by this time) say that around 5% of the public would entertain the notion of a hoaxed moon landing. Hoax believers themselves say the figure is closer to 20%, but they give no source. It's just wishful thinking.
While the numbers are debatable, the type of people who believe in the hoax theory is clearer. They conspicuously don't include scientists or engineers or any of the people you would normally consult on the matters that pertain to the arguments offered: radiation, computing power, etc. And while they include a fair number of photographers, they don't include any photographic analysts. The average layman doesn't know that photography and photo analysis are largely different fields and that proficiency in one doesn't give you proficiency in the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by freon on Jul 28, 2006 17:45:07 GMT -4
A lot of them their classified as hoax believers just have questions about discrepancies they view as odd and need somone with vast knowledge of the subject to explain it to them in layman terms at first then they can learn the more technical apects of why they are wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 28, 2006 17:53:09 GMT -4
Actually we've had quite a few. The difference is that while we stick around year on year, they tend to come in, get frustrated and leave. We have a high turnover of HBs on this and other forums.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 28, 2006 20:34:25 GMT -4
The unfortunate reality is if the debunkers do their work correctly, the Hoax Believer or Conspiracy Theorist eventually leaves the board. There are a few serious individuals like turbonium and Dead Hoosiers that stick around, even if it means taking a break from the board for a while and coming back.
I think this means that they are as commited to their positions as we are to ours, unlike the goofy kids who come in to yank our chains.
As freon stated, some people come here with questions and, (if they don't immediately irritate everyone) they get answers and information from people who really geek out on certain subjects and love any excuse to share it.
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 28, 2006 22:01:50 GMT -4
I think the number of hoax believers who have joined this forum is smaller than we realize since some of them are just sock puppets (one person with multiple accounts).
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 29, 2006 4:58:22 GMT -4
A lot of them their classified as hoax believers just have questions about discrepancies they view as odd and need somone with vast knowledge of the subject to explain it to them in layman terms at first then they can learn the more technical apects of why they are wrong.
These aren't HB's. HB's have the opinion that it was Hoaxed and generally turn up with the attitude that they are going to prove it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 29, 2006 13:41:03 GMT -4
I think the number of hoax believers who have joined this forum is smaller than we realize since some of them are just sock puppets (one person with multiple accounts). I think we should start a betting pool on this one! I bet a dollar on Margamatix with 11 socks. |
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Aug 3, 2006 11:15:55 GMT -4
Bump
|
|
|
|
Post by lunatic on Aug 4, 2006 3:53:10 GMT -4
What is a hoax believer.
Is it a condition?
A refusal to believe what the history books, scientist put forward as the actual chain of events?
I think they just appeal to the Sherlock Holmes in some of us.
There have been cases of people lying in the past.
Many scientists have been involved in very questionable activities.
TV journalist are only interested in ratings.
So most people with a questioning nature are left in doubt over some issues.
I for one do not think Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gun man, this will not shock anyone or even raze an eyebrow.
Neither will the fact that I have done absolutely no research with witch to base my supposition on.
But is clearly a case of some kind of conspiracy.
I am in no way putting forward any kind of argument, but it would seem kind of obvious.
As would the OJ Simpson trial, lots of experts, TV footage, eye witness testimony, live on TV and nobody agreed with the verdict.
Was there some kind of conspiracies going behind these events?
Would these high profile events fuel people suspicions of just about anything they see on TV, read in the news paper or view on the web?
I do think the moon hoax is going out of fashion, 711 sounds more exciting is suppose.
Similar to the Apollo Project losing favour to TV cop shows back in the day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Aug 4, 2006 5:03:03 GMT -4
And that's when his credibility disappeared, your honour ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Aug 4, 2006 10:16:00 GMT -4
If you have not researched Oswald at all, how are you so sure it is obvious that he was not a lone gunman?
I'm not sure where you get your news from, but lots of people agreed with the OJ verdict.
Ranb
|
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Aug 5, 2006 2:37:57 GMT -4
I'm trying to imagine a station manager saying "We want ratings, people -- so absolutely do not dig up anything new, anything that goes against the status quo, anything our audience can't get on every other station out there. And above all, avoid controversy! Look at where that kind of behavior got Woodward and Bernstein -- we obviously don't want that kind of attention for _our_ newsroom!"
I guess these guys went to the same classes where scientists were shown that the best way to get a Nobel Prize was to avoid original work at all costs....
I
|
|
|
|
Post by simon39 on Aug 6, 2006 5:53:34 GMT -4
As I said at the beginning I do not think there are that many "real hoax" believers and most are chain yankers or kids, it makes me feel good that there are people on these forums who keep the truth live - good work.
I honestly believe that the Apollo landings was mans greatest achievment - certainly this century - it has been described as the last optimistic act of the 20th century - a nice quote I think.
Oswald is interesting, from memory he spent a lot of time in Russia and tried to become a communist - basically to gain attention - people said that if he was born in Russia as a communist he would have tried to go to America to become a capitalist, just to be outside the norm, I seem to remember they were not too keen on him.
He married a russian wife and brought her over to the US and I believe the marriage failed, before that he was involved in some trouble in Miami, he appeared on a newscast and that attention grabbing personality reared its head again.
From studying him it becomes apparent that he had exactly the type of attention grabbing personality that would have made him do something like shoot Kennedy, this odd streak seemed to run in him throughout his entire life, that linked to his communist leanings make him the only shooter on that day I think.
Apart from that the other obvious point is that if there was more than one shooter they would have been unable to correlate their shots to make it look like there was only one shooter and the final result of two holes in Kennedy would have been down to luck.
|
|
