|
Post by lukepemberton on Mar 9, 2011 2:23:12 GMT -4
I am dissappointed in him. I would not be too disappointed. I can understand that you may be frustrated, but I'd be cautious to say that as a competent scientist he has a duty. That only lends to the hoax proponents arguments that scientists 'do as they are told' and 'show no dissent from the official story.' In my opinion he's offering the view of a scientific purist, and I respect that view. He's open minded, and that's what sets him apart from the hard line theorist. If I recall, a few days ago, forum members generally agreed that only the 12 astronauts can be 100% certain. Let's not forget that small factoid, which I am sure will not be cited in the forthcoming 12 hour YouTube video series on the subject. O'Leary is not making a testimony that Apollo was hoaxed by any stretch, and anyone who draws that conclusion really is stealing oxygen and wasting DNA. I'm sure that the hoax fraternity, led by our antipodean friend, will steal such oxygen as they make hay while the sun shines. Their conclusions will be the usual non sequitur nonsense, ignoring the subtle points that O'Leary is making. Let's guess what is coming next. Brian O'Leary states again that he cannot be 100% sure that Apollo was authentic. Hoax proponents state that even Brian O'Leary is not sure and therefore Apollo is faked. If that's the strength of their logic, then it shows how weak their argument is, and what they rely on to continue propping up their delusions. We all know how the hoax crowd operates, and to be quite honest I tend to ignore their 'he said, they said' arguments now. I find if I do that, it confirms to me that they actually have nothing of substance since all their arguments have been debunked many years ago. It's a useful exercise to perform.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Mar 9, 2011 4:38:41 GMT -4
Well, thank you for the condescension, Wade. If you had asked, instead of lashing-out, I would have happy to tell you that my name is Richard Rather, and that I am US Navy vet with combat experience. That's not important. This is: But somebody who does not even use their real name does not get to credibly challenge Brian’s courage. You admirably lept to the defense of Dr. O'Leary; perhaps because he is your friend, or you admire his accomplishments, or because you had facts to refute what you perceived as an insult, or (probably) all three. You knew (and know) in your heart and in your mind that it was the right thing to do. You Took a Stand. The Hoax proponents challenge the integrity, honesty and courage of admirable people who risked more, and accomplished greater things than you, I or Dr. O'Leary ever have or ever will. Whatever Brian's personal feelings for Slayton, Shepard and the rest, they are no less deserving of a vigorous, fact-based defense. So, he regrets getting involved in this discussion (and I can't say that I blame him, under the circumstances), but tough - too bad. Even though he would "...like to be relieved of the responsibility for having a strong polarized position," he is a public figure. Like it or not, he consented to an interview in which he was asked to give his informed opinion, and he is accountable for his words. The Rubicon has been crossed. Dr. O'Leary wrote of "the greater responsibility we have as a civilization," and wanting to "...carry on with my own work rather than address issues relating to past events." Brian wants to change the world. He wants to stir people up, rally the public and government and show them that when science and engineering are harnessed for peaceful means, we really can change the world, inspire people and reap untold benefits (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). The debate over the reality of Apollo is not an academic quibble over footnotes in history. Apollo is the ultimate example of government, popular will, science and engineering coming together to achieve the seemingly impossible. How many times in your life have you heard the question, "If we can land a man on the moon, why can't we _______?" Defending Apollo is integral to the causes that Dr. O'Leary has dedicated himself to. It is not history; it is about the here-and-now and about inpiring people to create a better future. This is his fight, and I am astonished that he does not see this. Which brings me to the point of this post, and my previous one. Wade, I understand your awkward position as the middle-man in this, and I appreciate you taking on this burden, especially considering your mixed feelings and unhappiness about his position. But I would like to implore you once again to try to change his mind. Whether he likes it or not, whether he wants it or not, whether he knows it or not, he is involved in this debate. As a public figure, his word carries weight. Weighing-in may be uncomfortable, but it will lend support to the causes he champions. He needs to Take a Stand. Please help. Respectfully, Rick
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 9, 2011 13:24:37 GMT -4
When one makes ambiguous statements, one has to live with the fact that others will interpret them in different ways. This is resolved by making an unambiguous clarification. Otherwise the debate on what one really meant will go on. On the other hand you can just ignore it and move on, as Dr. O'Leary appears to have done. In this case the issue of the moon hoax is not seriously in doubt and his participation in the spreading of any moon hoax theory is trivial. I don't see that he has any real obligation to address it further. If he doesn't mind what is written about him on Wikipedia enough to take action, then the issue should be considered closed.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 9, 2011 14:53:22 GMT -4
If I recall, a few days ago, forum members generally agreed that only the 12 astronauts can be 100% certain. Let's not forget that small factoid, which I am sure will not be cited in the forthcoming 12 hour YouTube video series on the subject. 1. "Factoid" in fact means small piece of information that people think is true but really isn't. 2. It was a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one, and in that philosophical discussion, I'd maintain that they cannot be 100% sure, either, because of the "brains in jars" speculation. In any practical sense, they can be slightly more certain than the rest of us, but the rest of us can be so certain that the deviation from it is slight. 3, and not directed at you. Murder attempts?
|
|
|
Post by chew on Mar 9, 2011 15:09:25 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Mar 9, 2011 16:18:27 GMT -4
1. "Factoid" in fact means small piece of information that people think is true but really isn't. Factoid is used a lot on British radio to describe a piece of trivia. I guess it has been bastardised by the British to mean something different. 2. It was a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one, and in that philosophical discussion, I'd maintain that they cannot be 100% sure, either, because of the "brains in jars" speculation. In any practical sense, they can be slightly more certain than the rest of us, but the rest of us can be so certain that the deviation from it is slight. Understand that, and if we are to take it that far, then the moon may be a program that is wired into our brains in a jar. I was trying to explain that I believe O'Leary is also making a philosophical point, namely that he does not own absolute proof, as no one does. I feel frustrated that this point will be lost in the theorists non sequitur ramblings, since a subtle point like that will be lost on most of them. 3, and not directed at you. Murder attempts? I do sometimes wonder if one day, a prominent member of the Apollo debate will be killed by a moon hoax conspiracy theorist. There again, I have some very harsh views about the hard line element, and some draconian measures of how they should be dealt with. Most not repeatable here. So I'll leave that debate for private audiences.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Mar 9, 2011 18:23:15 GMT -4
3, and not directed at you. Murder attempts? Yes - seriously? He's afraid to confirm his acceptance of Apollo because he's afraid of being murdered? That sounds very far-fetched.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 10, 2011 2:10:22 GMT -4
Here's more details from the trial.Sad way to go, truly evil deed, but not a really conspriacy as such. Of course the fact that there was a false start in the case, that it then took them 6 years to get the actual perpertrators, and that the crime scene got bulldozed to put a highway there, all allowed a large vaccum for conspriacies to grow among the more paranoid.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Mar 10, 2011 2:57:43 GMT -4
Here's more details from the trial.Sad way to go, truly evil deed, but not a really conspriacy as such. Of course the fact that there was a false start in the case, that it then took them 6 years to get the actual perpertrators, and that the crime scene got bulldozed to put a highway there, all allowed a large vaccum for conspriacies to grow among the more paranoid. It's another example of whacko thinking I guess. If Mallove had developed cold fusion, the oil companies would be banging his door down to get him in and make huge amounts of profit. Let's just invent a far out theory instead, one that just makes no sense. I really do despair for the future of man kind. Hence my draconian views regarding conspiracy theorists.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 10, 2011 15:14:46 GMT -4
Factoid is used a lot on British radio to describe a piece of trivia. I guess it has been bastardised by the British to mean something different. Not just the British, alas. Most subtle points are! It's one of the reasons I work so hard to keep the debate from being about personalities. No one should be penalized for what they think, and what the individuals are like doesn't matter to the facts. If we let the people matter more than the facts, we're encouraging some pretty unsavoury behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Mar 10, 2011 20:30:34 GMT -4
On this forum, instead of calling it a factoid, why don't we call it a factini?
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Mar 10, 2011 21:44:41 GMT -4
The Hoax proponents challenge the integrity, honesty and courage of admirable people who risked more, and accomplished greater things than you, I or Dr. O'Leary ever have or ever will. AGREED!! Sometimes I'm flabbergasted by how lax some NASA supporters are in their defense of Apollo. Almost as if accusing people of lying, deceit and possible murder is just some glib joke that be brushed off. Again, I totally agree. You can't offer up conflicting statements to different people and then throw your hands in the air with the attitude, "I'm done with this!" when others request that you clarify your position. I again agree, but would add that it's about more than just supporting science, it's about supporting the TRUTH! Doesn't anyone care about that anymore? As I have stated in other threads, I really believe that many young people these days don't want to go into science and engineering because a sad minority of paranoid, conspiracy fearing nut-bars has them convinced that the realm of science is full of liars. Anyone with first hand experience should help fight the idea of Apollo being a hoax for no other reason than it's a LIE!
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Mar 11, 2011 7:17:01 GMT -4
On this forum, instead of calling it a factoid, why don't we call it a factini? That sounds like the noise a Jawa (Star Wars) would make.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Mar 11, 2011 15:59:59 GMT -4
On this forum, instead of calling it a factoid, why don't we call it a factini? That sounds like the noise a Jawa (Star Wars) would make. Or maybe a new cocktail variant?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 11, 2011 19:05:03 GMT -4
That sounds like the noise a Jawa (Star Wars) would make. Like any self respecting member of this forum would need to be reminded that Jawas were from Star Wars. Humf! The article on Jawas from Wookieepedia
|
|