Rocks from the Moon

[Bob B.]

margamatix said:

Thanks for descending into personal insult. What better way to show that you've lost the argument!

And here we have the typical next step in the HB repertoire. Goad your competition into insults and then claim victory on moral grounds.

[PhantomWolf]

margamatix, if you don't like us attributing standard HB behaviours and attitudes to you, stop acting like them. So far all you have done is act like virtually every single one of them I've ever encountered. You repeat your claims as if they will become the truth simply through your repeating them often enough. You provide no evidence, you ignore answers given, you evade questions asked, you don't bother reading referances.

We've seen it all before and it doesn't impress us. If you want to put up some more evidence than "Sibral said..." then fine. If you want to actually discuss it, rather then just repeating your claims time and time again even after they have been shown wrong, if you want to go and read up on the evidence like you claimed you had when you first got here, if you are willing to admit your ideas are wrong when they are shown to be rather than ignoring any and all rebutals and proof otherwise and then just restating your claims as if they are true because you're making them, then I'm happy to as well. But as I've said before, while you are going to act like a standard run of the mill HB, you're gunna be treated like one, and the more you act like it, the more people will get fed up and do so.

As of yet I haven't seen any evidence that you came here with an open mind ready to learn. All I've seen if the typical HB who will refuses to listen or learn but just wants to troll. So why should I help you or even care about helping you when you aren't going to listen anyways?

[Kiwi]

Margamatix, I can't, of course, speak for LunarOrbit, but I feel that you will soon be joining "unknown" and "pierre1985" for trolling (see the Banned User's threads in the Announcements section), unless you at least show a little of an ability to debate rationally.

If this happens you could, of course, ask questions at the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board where many of us also hang out, but be warned that Dr Plait does not suffer foolishness as gladly as we do here.

We are not at all asking you to suddenly come around to our point of view, we are merely asking you to be a little more sensible and use your brains. Carefully examine and consider what we say, reply to posts and answer questions. It is only good manners to do so.

Most of us enjoy a good debate, we enjoy having our ideas challenged, and personally, I very much enjoy being proved wrong.

But, like most places, there are certain standards expected of each and every one of us here and when it comes to meeting those standards, you are one of the biggest failures I have ever seen, and I'm speaking as a member of the old Apollo Hoax going back years.

There are many wonderful people on these boards and you have been taught extremely well by a few of them, including the finest teacher by far that I have come across in 50+ years. I view that, and my participation in this board, as a privilege and something I treasure, but you thumb your nose at it.

You are beginning to give the impression that you are just a "smart" kid with a big ego who tells lies and gets your kicks from yanking chains.

Good luck to you.

[JayUtah]

Thanks for descending into personal insult. What better way to show that you've lost the argument!

You finally got the ad hominem response you've been fishing for ever since you arrived. It has really been obvious for some time that this was all you ever wanted. You've had dozens of posts full of insightful comment that you've left largely unread and unaddressed, but as soon as someone tells you what he thinks of you, you say, "Aha! I win!" That was your plan all along.

Do you think you're the first person to come here and adopt a fingers-in-ears approach until someone finally loses patience with you? You're simply the latest in a dozen or more idealogues in recent memory who really have no knowledge of or interest in what is true or right or logical, and merely want to be seen as right, or smart, by throwing dirt wherever it will stick.

Let's be serious here. All you've done is to beg the question -- repeatedly and stubbornly. You have yet to actually address any of the discussion that's been put toward you. Your contribution has been essentially a monologue. It's fine for you to state your beliefs, but then when those beliefs are questioned on logical, technical, factual, or inferential grounds, it is not okay for you simply to "dig in", repeat your beliefs ad nauseam and call everyone else closed-minded because they have objections. Not if you want to be seen as rational. Not if you want to avoid being labelled a troll.

You've been patiently attended by a fairly large number of well-educated and experienced people, whose statements and arguments you have almost completely ignored. You have shown no willingness whatsoever to investigate ideas other than your own or consider explanations that don't fit your preconceptions. You are being called a troll because you fit the definition.

As to victory, you lost the argument days ago simply by refusing to engage in it. PhantomWolf finally got around to announcing that the emperor has no clothes. Now you may take personal issue at being called naked, but the fact remains that you are. And by that I mean that you can go away now and lick your wounds and tell others how "badly" you were treated "just for expressing your opinion", but the fact will remain that you can't actually -- and never could -- discuss the moon landing evidence with anything approaching knowledge or expertise.

But in closing, thank you very much for jumping right on those emotional posts and confirming, beyond any doubt, my suspicion that you never really wanted anything here but to be rejected spectacularly.

[sts60]

I don't think margamatix is close to being banned. He hasn't tried to support his claims yet - he's just repeating them so far - and he's trotted out the familiar straw man about "closed minds", but he hasn't been posting a lot of insults, profanity, or irrelevant drivel. It took all of those things to get EO and unknown banned, and that took quite a while. LO allows a lot more latitude then Dr. Phil on BABB, who enforces the support-your-claim rule more severely.

I personally don't think it's appropriate to ban him, anyway. He has engaged in the discussion a little bit. Now he just needs to back up his claims.

[twinstead]

margamatix those aren't insults, they are simply dispassionate observations.

[sts60]

It's not a case of being "in on the hoax". I am sure they genuinely believe in what they are saying, just as those who persecuted "witches" in Salem did in the late 1600s.

Those people - chemists, geologists, and physicists - were competent to evaluate the lunar samples and determine their characteristics, which include properties not found in soil and rock formed on Earth. The samples themselves are available in quantities and varieties unobtainable through meteorite collection on Earth, and meteorites have distinct features which show they were not collected in situ - that is, they must have fallen to Earth.

Therefore, their "belief" in the samples' lunar origin is quite sufficient for one to conclude that they were, indeed, collected on the Moon. If you assert that they are not of lunar origin, the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise. Your mere opinion carries no weight unless you can demonstrate your own expertise in the appropriate fields.

The Salem witchcraft hysteria is probably the closest thing in history to moon-landing-belief hysteria,

No one here who accepts the validity of the Apollo is "hysterical" about it. It's simply the end result of actually considering the record, and learning something about the subject and the underlying principles. You have not demonstrated a similar commitment to doing so yet; all your assertions to date have been simple repetitions of claims from conspiracist sites, and you don't appear to be familiar with anything to do with spaceflight.

Speaking of hysteria, though, I have noticed that many Apollo "hoax" believers are also believers in a wide range of extraordinary "conspiracy" claims, such as "No airliner hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001" and "the Holocaust never happened". This speaks poorly of their emotional and mental stability. Not that I am lumping you in that group, of course.

but in the end, the truth outed, and it will about the Apollo moon-faking too.

I have offered you ten thousand dollars U.S. as a bet against your statement that NASA would admit the moon landings were hoaxed in five years. Are you game?

[JayUtah]

I don't support a ban on Margamatix. But I doubt I will take much interest in further discussion with him unless it rises above ad nauseam repetition of claims.

I too don't mind -- and frequently actively seek -- being proved wrong. But it has to be on logically defensible grounds. When someone challenges my belief and offers what he styles as a better one, I expect an argument for why that belief is more robustly logical or more factually supported or more parsimonious than what I already have. If his case boils down simply to, "I'm right; it's obvious; and you're just closed-minded if you don't see that," then I can see in him a person who has not arrived at his belief by any kind of intellectual process.

People who adopt a belief by means of careful thought and dispassionate consideration can articulate at will the chain of reasoning that led them to it. On the other hand, people who adopt a belief ideologically can't, because there was no chain of reasoning to begin with. Circular logic and question-begging come naturally in those cases. Idealogues rarely consider that their opinions may not be objectively justified.

I will be most happy to explain to Megamatix or anyone else how to construct a viable argument, or how to examine and analyze an argument for viability. But I don't think that's what Megamatix wants, just as Bart Sibrel really didn't want to know whether the astronauts would swear on the Bible. The purpose of Sibrel's exercise was to put the astronauts into a situation in which embarrassing behavior was likely to ensue, on the misguided notion that showing them embarrassed would somehow distract from the facts surrounding their claims and Sibrel's. Megamatix isn't here to talk about Apollo. He's here to create a situation in which one or more of us acts out of impatience, so that he can use that to distract from the facts surrounding Apollo.

Whether we're polite or whether we're hostile and antagonistic does not change the situation: the conspiracy theorists and their believers have little if any correct understanding of Apollo, space flight, or the sciences that touch upon its authenticity, and they're yet determined to encourage the public to reward them for their ignorance.

[margamatix]

sts60 said:

I have offered you ten thousand dollars U.S. as a bet against your statement that NASA would admit the moon landings were hoaxed in five years. Are you game?

I will just answer this last point, and the answer is no. I believe that man has never walked on the moon but I would not take on a wager of $10,000 simply because I do not have $10,000, and if you take on a bet, you should be able to discharge your debt if you lose, regardless of your opinion as to whether you would.

[LunarOrbit]

I'm not about to ban you margamatix, but I will repeat what others have said: simply repeating that you believe the moon landings were faked over and over again does not make it true and it will not convince anyone.

Provide proof to back up your claims, read the replies that the others write, and do a bit of research.

[JayUtah]

I will just answer this last point, and the answer is no. I believe that man has never walked on the moon but I would not take on a wager of $10,000 simply because I do not have $10,000...

But if you accept the possibility that you will have to cough up $10,000 then you accept the possibility that your prediction is false. If you are sure of your statement then your money is safe. You are either sure of your conclusion or you are not. On your other points you said we were closed-minded for not accepting your opinion. Now it appears you yourself aren't so sure.

Evidently you don't believe with sufficient strength that NASA will recant on Apollo within 5 years. You won't put your money where your mouth is; this is all just a game to you.

Now that your own faith in your own conclusions has been eroded, would you care to re-examine any of your other conclusions?

[skinbath]

Hey margamatix,let me direct you to this site www.911studies.com/911photostudies7.htm ,which is a few pages along on a site offered by "frenat " in another thread, " Jack Whites 9/11 hilarity " www.911studies.com/ .I`ve given this site/page just to show you how ( in my opinion ) you`re being deceived;just look at the pictures and then read the given caption.It should take you about one second flat to work out whether these are the same guys or not.

I can`t argue these fields like the other guys here,I just don`t posses the technical knowledge and to be honest there could well be holes in some of the arguments that you could drive a bus through.But,I don`t believe this to be the case and there is reasoned logic behind the answers given that you can follow for yourself.I`ve literally been on-line for just two weeks and thought I`d look up these sorts of arguments and theories.It`s just a query I wanted to investigate but you can soon ( I believe ) easily see the inconsistencies in the HB`s assertions.The HB`s are all interlinked and although the page I`ve directed you to is not directly about you`re assumption it is,nevertheless,relevant.If guys such as Jack White can be this deceitful and offer it up as evidence of conspiracy/call it what you will,then you have to ask yourself just exactly who are the "real" hoaxers.

(edit for spelling)

[sts60]

I believe that man has never walked on the moon but I would not take on a wager of $10,000 simply because I do not have $10,000, and if you take on a bet, you should be able to discharge your debt if you lose, regardless of your opinion as to whether you would.

I don't have a problem with that. Heck, I can't really afford $10000 - but I could pay it if necessary.

I am willing to bet you any lesser amount of money (US$1000? $100?) that there will be no such "admission" by NASA. There is as much chance of such a confession by NASA as there is of one by the Department of the Interior that there is no such state as "North Dakota".

But this is really just a distraction anyway. The point is that "belief" isn't the issue. We can assume for purposes of this discussion* that you believe what you say, and that I believe what I say, and that the geologists and chemists and physicists listed above believed what they said.

What is the issue is evidence, and the ability to judge it competently. So far you have not considered any of the evidence offered you. In this thread, for example, a list of presumably competent researchers from countries across the globe were listed. It was also pointed out that lunar samples retrieved in situ were (and still are) not fakeable to their analysis by Earth-based meteorite collection or synthesis. Your only reply to this is that they were wrong - honest, but wrong.

Wrong how? Exactly what could fool researchers who were told they had samples directly retrieved from the surface of the Moon? Exactly how could you fake the quantity of samples with the right combination of unique isotope signatures, long-term vacuum, thermal cycling, radiation, and micrometeorite effects? Not to mention the lack of water and chemical infiltration effects, and of course the lack of a fusion crust?

* I think that some of the bigger hoax proponents don't believe everything they say, but are deliberately deceptive in their books and videotapes. Others are simply ignorant and deluded or deranged.

[JayUtah]

Skinbath has a point. Megamatix, you directed us to the Sky at Night episode and asked us to evaluate Neil Armstrong's behavior to see whether there were any signs of deceit or evasion. If you believe that's a useful line of inquiry, why haven't you done the same for your own sources?

We've given you plenty of examples -- and you can find plenty on your own -- of out-and-out chicanery from these conspiracy authors. At best they are habitually evasive, and at worst they are downright dishonest. If it is kosher to evaluate the credibility of one side of the story by looking at the behavior of its proponents, then the same should hold true of the other side. Whether Neil Armstrong looks uncomfortable and why is a matter of subjective opinion. The treachery of the other side of the argument is far more objective and blatant. Selective quotation, misrepresentation and fabrication of fact, and rampant innuendo are not subjective observations. We don't have to speculate whether they occur. We must still speculate as to motive, of course, and the fact that most of these authors have overpriced books and videos to sell suggests a motive.

If the rightness of the cause derives in any amount from the forthrightness of the proponents, then the conspiracy theorists lose handily. And it's sad that Megamatix is too busy trying to get everyone else dirty that he doesn't realize that his own heroes are practically wallowing in filth.

[margamatix]

jayutah said:

I

But if you accept the possibility that you will have to cough up $10,000 then you accept the possibility that your prediction is false. If you are sure of your statement then your money is safe.

Yes, I do accept the possibility that it may be wrong. You will not entertain the remotest possibility that you may be, though.

But the reason I would not take on a wager of $10,000 is because I cannot back that wager with $10,000 if I was wrong.

It's nothing to do with "your money being safe" I DO NOT HAVE $10,000 TO BE SAFE and I would not take on a wager for a sum I could not cover, but would willingly take on a wager for a nominal sum and would be happy for our handshake to take place on prime-time TV around the World.



As to your suggestion that I will not examine the evidence.......

If you care to search Google for "moon hoax" or Apollo hoax", you will find that anti-hoax websites seem to outnumber pro-hoax sites by about two to one and I have looked at all of them.

How do you think I found my way here?


It's ridiculous to say I trot out any HB theory verbatim without thought. There is a suggestion that the moon flag should hang limply, and not be erect, but I have never advanced this theory here.

The theory is rebutted with the argument that there is a metal pole running horizontally through the flag, and I accept this, just as I accept that an astronaut was jerked upwards on a wire because I can see it with my own two eyes.


I have looked at every site I have been referred to, I have been polite and civil, I have not once made a personal attack on anyone, I have asked genuine questions about things I do not understand, and I have done my best to understand the answers I have been given.

If you don't want me on this forum simply because I believe Apollo was a hoax. then please just say so.