Rocks from the Moon

[LunarOrbit]

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

The quality of the information found on a website is far more important than the quantity of them.

[JayUtah]

I am willing to bet you any lesser amount of money (US$1000? $100?) that there will be no such "admission" by NASA.

As am I. But the real point is the hierarchy of reluctance to trust one's one judgment. If the bet were $10 then it would be taken up immediately. Anyone here can afford to lose $10 if he is proven wrong. At $100 the bet becomes more interesting. Losing $100 is painful, but sustainable. But when the bet becomes $1,000 or $10,000 or $1 million then failure of one's judgment would be catastrophic.

My willingness and yours to risk financial catastrophe is a testament to the degree of confidence we have in our conclusions, and thust the degree to which we have ascertained that objective fact supports them. As an engineer I am required every day to put my reputation, my company's money, and occasionally our customers' lives and fortunes on the line according to my judgment. As such I am used to basing decisions on what is true and right, not on what I prefer to believe. When the stakes get very high, no amount of "open-mindedness" will save you from catastrophe. In high-stakes cases, you had better be right.

So raising the stakes is a fun way of flushing out trolls and revealing just how much they are willing to stand by their statements. And it exposes all the bluster about closed-mindedness for what it is. If the conclusion is abandoned when the stakes rise to an uncomfortable level, then the proponent admits that there really might be legitimate reasons for disbelieving the conclusion. And if there are legitimate avenues for disbelief, then it's not "closed-minded" to question the conclusion pending an investigation of those avenues.

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".

And it should be noted that the methods used by conspiracy theorists, if applied and taken at face value, really would challenge the existence and authenticity of North Dakota. Because their arguments are purely suppositional, inferential, and conjectural, there can be no falsifying them. This is why we do not accept lines of reasoning that are not subject to falsifiability, and why conclusions that can only be held on non-falsifiable grounds are summarily rejected, or at least held in abeyance.

But the important lesson to take away from this is the need to validate one's methods. If one's approach to ascertaining authenticity rejects the existence of a patently existing thing (a false negative) then you can draw no reliable conclusion about the negative outcome of such a method applied to a question whose outcome is not known a priori. That is the very essence of reliability in testing.

[sts60]

I think a lot of us would like to see you hang around here. But a lot of us would like to see you advance beyond repeating your claims to addressing the explanations posted in response. For example,

I accept that an astronaut was jerked upwards on a wire because I can see it with my own two eyes.

This is, what, the eighth time you've repeated this? But it's been carefully pointed out to you that high-quality imagery (which you've practically had put in your hands) doesn't show any wires, and that the astronaut motions are perfectly explained by leverage from another astronaut - which is visible in public-domain motion imagery, with corresponding conversations from the astronauts. Your "jerked upwards on a wire" assertion has been refuted. Please stop repeating this claim, and start defending it.

[margamatix]

sts60 said:

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".

Well I can tell you right here and now that I have never given any credence to any of the conspiracy theories you mention, and that the only other conspiracy theory I have ever believed in was the one that stated that Iraq did not possess Weapons of Mass Destruction

[gdwarf]

margamatix said:

sts60 said:

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".

Well I can tell you right here and now that I have never given any credence to any of the conspiracy theories you mention, and that the only other conspiracy theory I have ever believed in was the one that stated that Iraq did not possess Weapons of Mass Destruction

I would like to ask one thing. I mean no offence, but you seem to like ignoring points you can't counter and, instead ask new questions/ divert the topic of the thread. Next time you make a post could you please either present evidence that your claims are correct or admit that they are not. You can add anything else to that post, but at least do that. Also, simply saying "Doesn't that look like X to you" does not count as evidence, if the moon looked like a car to me that wouldn't mean that it was one.

[JayUtah]

Yes, I do accept the possibility that it may be wrong.

Then you agree it is not closed-minded of us to explore those possibilities. If you yourself admit you might be wrong, then there's nothing amiss with our suspicion that you are wrong. And so when we enumerate the reasons why we believe you're wrong, we're not just being pig-headed.

All we're doing is testing your claim. And if you admit it might be wrong, then you should have no objection to the test.

You will not entertain the remotest possibility that you may be, though.

Of course I entertain the possibility. As a scientist and/or engineer I must always be receptive to the possibility of error. However, if I have formulated my beliefs on what I consider to be a solid foundation of fact and logic, I am not obliged to admit error or abandon my belief simply because someone says I might be wrong, or because the advocate for a new belief says, "It's just right."

You're asking us to accept your conclusions on nothing more than your say-so. When we ask for proof, you give us only naked assertion and inference, or else irrelevant comparisons. You won't justify the expectations that you silently apply to the evidence. You won't address any of our refutations.

A reasonable person is under no obligation to alter his beliefs just because some other alternative is offered. A case must be made, and you either don't know how to make one or simply refuse to.

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.

And you're not sure you're right. If you were sure that you were right, then you would never have to come up with the $10,000. In fact, you would earn that $10,000.

All we've done is to raise the stakes on your conclusions to see how much you really believe in them yourself. If you had the ultimate faith you've been professing up until now, the stakes wouldn't matter. But now that the stakes are high, you show yourself to be uncertain about your beliefs.

That's fine. Only now that your beliefs are uncertain, you can't use the "You're just closed-minded" defense. It's not closed-minded to challenge uncertain beliefs.

How do you think I found my way here?

Because you were looking for pro-hoax sites and thought this was one of them because of its name.

It's ridiculous to say I trot out any HB theory verbatim without thought.

It's not ridiculous, because you have not shown any thought regarding the theories which you have reproduced here. It doesn't matter that there exist arguments you haven't made. All the ones you have made are answered on the sites you claim to have studied.

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 can show you the metal rod in the flag. Can you show me the wire yanking the astronaut? No, you cannot. That is the difference. There is other evidence supporting the existence of a rod besides the upright posture of the flag. We don't have to infer the presence of the rod by noting that the flag is erect. We know by photographic, documentary, and eyewitness evidence that such a rod exists. You cannot provide that independent, evidentiary proof for your wire. You say there's a wire only because you inferred it from the observation. Inference is not evidence.

I have looked at every site I have been referred to...

Hogwash. I write at length about LM stability and Bart Sibrel's claims.
www.clavius.org/techlmstab.html
www.clavius.org/techsteer.html
www.clavius.org/bibvoron.html
Yet after being referred several times to my site, you asked us to evaluate Sibrel's statements. If you had read what I wrote, as requested, you would have known our answer.

I have been polite and civil, I have not once made a personal attack on anyone...

Ignoring what we say is neither polite nor civil. Calling us closed-minded after our detailed explanations is neither civil nor closed-minded. Baiting and goading us into impoliteness is not civilized behavior.

I have asked genuine questions about things I do not understand...

But you don't listen to the answers. Your questions are all for rhetorical effect. You just want to be seen asking the questions; you don't care about the answers.

...and I have done my best to understand the answers I have been given.

Utter hogwash. You simply restate your claim and call us all closed-minded for not accepting them, even after we give our reasons for the objection.

For example, after a lengthy discussion about Bart Sibrel's history with the astronauts and how he tries to deceive and trap them, you still believe that those who refused to cooperate with him did so because they were afraid to swear they'd been to the moon.

After a lengthy analysis and search for better evidence for your "flown" astronaut, and the nature of theatrical flyrigs in general, you still state your claims unaltered.

It is as if nothing was ever said to you.

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

Nice try. You're desperate now to be "banned for your beliefs" so that you can claim some sort of moral victory on grounds of ideological oppression. You're on the rocks here because you won't support your beliefs, not because you have them.

We aren't at odds with you because you believe differently that we do. We are at odds because you are not even remotely as capable of discussing the evidence and logic surrounding your beliefs as we are to discuss ours. Yet you seem to consider us the intellectually deficient ones. You say you have made a thorough study of Apollo, yet you display none of the effects that would normally follow such a study.

[margamatix]

sts60 said:

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.

Well, you have said that you are not lumping me in with holocaust revisionists and I accept that, but since the whiff of holocaust denial has been raised, let me explain that I have visited both Auschwitz and Treblinka concentration camps in Poland, during time off from my job while travelling. If you want more information as to why I was there see www.TruckDrivingInRussia.co.uk

So, having seen it with my own two eyes, I believe it.

I know this doesn't alter anything about my beliefs in Apollo, but I find holocaust revisionism disasteful so i just wanted you to know.

[JayUtah]

...the only other conspiracy theory I have ever believed in was the one that stated that Iraq did not possess Weapons of Mass Destruction

I don't classify that as a "conspiracy theory" because that same conclusion was held by many people who were eminently qualified -- both by education and experience and by on-site inspection -- to answer it with utmost skill. True there were uninformed opinions on both sides, but there were also informed and honest opinions on both sides.

I define a conspiracy theory partially as a question in which there is a disproportion of expertise and honesty across the issue. Here, in terms of Apollo, the conspiracy theorists are not honest (although their followers probably are) and they are not informed.

[sts60]

Well, you have said that you are not lumping me in with holocaust revisionists and I accept that, but since the whiff of holocaust denial has been raised, let me explain that I have visited both Auschwitz and Treblinka concentration camps in Poland, during time off from my job while travelling. If you want more information as to why I was there see www.TruckDrivingInRussia.co.uk

So, having seen it with my own two eyes, I believe it.

I know this doesn't alter anything about my beliefs in Apollo, but I find holocaust revisionism disasteful so i just wanted you to know.

Fair enough. I also find it distasteful (to use a very mild word).

However, I find it interesting that the same techniques used by Holocaust deniers are used by Apollo hoax proponents like Sibrel (invocation of secret cabals, begging the question, selective use of evidence, denial of or improper use of technical evidence, appeals to ignorance, hyping minor inconsistencies in the record, etc.)

There was one guy here who came in telling us that Apollo was faked because, among other things, he didn't believe the way the astronauts drove the lunar rover. He eventually accepted, after much discussion, that the Apollo landings did indeed happen. He came back later with 9/11 conspiracy theories, including the howler that no airliner hit the Pentagon, and went on to denying the Holocaust ever happened. It was quite ugly.

As for the WMD "conspiracy", I'm a little confused. Are you saying you did believe they were there pre-invasion, but not now? Or vice-versa?

[margamatix]

sts60 said:

[
As for the WMD "conspiracy", I'm a little confused. Are you saying you did believe they were there pre-invasion, but not now? Or vice-versa?

During the build-up to war, I said to my wife "Of course they haven't got Weapons of Mass Destruction, we've spent the last three months building up troops on their border, don't you think they would have used them by now?"


There were countless "experts" saying "this proves it, that proves it", but sometimes you are a little better off ignoring the experts and applying some of Mom's good old-fashioned common-sense to a situation.

Of course we have never been to the moon.

[JayUtah]

I was about to make the same point.

Points in your favor, Megamatix, for not believing theories about a faked Holocaust. You might legitimately ask why we'd think you did. It's not an attempt to make you look like a lunatic or to distract from Apollo. But some psychologists, namely Dr. Michael Shermer, have studied the nature of belief as it relates to conspiracy theories and has identified a sort of psychological archetype of the hoax believer. Without intending any offense, you fit many aspects of that archetype. The aspect you don't fit is the universal belief in pretty much any conspiracy theory that comes out. And that's why we had to ask. Knowing that you're not the archetypical conspiracy theorist helps us take you at face value. If you were a Shermerian conspiracist, there is little we could do or say that would keep your sojourn here from ending quickly and badly.

That said, we can concentrate less on what you don't believe and more on what you do believe, and why.

You have concluded that the Holocaust really happened. You have done so not out of preconception, but out of your own personal efforts at acquiring the information necessary to make a suitable decision. Your approach, then, to the Holocaust-deniers is probably not unlike our approach to the moon hoax theorists, although the difference in human cost is stark. You probably think, then, that advancing a fake Holocaust theory would require selective quoting, concealment, and distortion of the facts.

There are many of us, as has been said often, who are quite well-versed and professionally experienced in space operations. We know how to build and operate spaceships, and part of that knowledge is based on how spaceships were built and operated 30 years ago. Others of us are experienced photographers and photographic analysis who know how to read all kinds of photos, not just those from Apollo or the Pentagon or Dealy Plaza. Collectively we believe Apollo was real, or at the very least that no defensible objection or inconsistency exists to challenge it. We've had the same experience -- with respect to Apollo -- by means of our professional experience as you had with respect to the Holocaust by visiting the camps.

That's not to say our beliefs are cemented firmly in place. But they are not just idle or default beliefs. They are beliefs that have been confirmed in many ways at many times, and so are not shaken simply by mere suggestions to the contrary. You hear suggestions that the Holocaust wasn't real, but you don't pay them much attention because your standard of proof is higher. And it's not "closed-minded" of you to reject those suggestions because your standard of proof is not met.

Yes, we do have a high standard of proof here. If you're not willing to meet it, then you'd be happier elsewhere. But it's not an unreasonable standard of proof. It's just much higher than most conspiracy theorists are willing to aim for.

[JayUtah]

Of course we have never been to the moon.

But do you see the difference? In the WMD case there were legitimate experts on both sides of the issue. There was defensible logic on both sides of the issue.

There are no legitimate experts on the side of the moon hoax theory. There is little if any defensible logic on the moon hoax theory.

These aren't equivalent cases.

[margamatix]

jayutah said:

Of course we have never been to the moon.

But do you see the difference? In the WMD case there were legitimate experts on both sides of the issue. There was defensible logic on both sides of the issue.

There are no legitimate experts on the side of the moon hoax theory.

You are talking to a man who lives in a country whose leading "expert" on cot-death has just been struck off by the General Medical Council, after his false evidence led to three women being wrongly imprisoned for life on charges of murdering their own children.

Search Google for "Sir Roy Meadow"



Don't ever say to me "You are a truck driver, I am an expert, therefore my opinion is worth more" because I'm afraid that just won't wash.

[gdwarf]

margamatix said:

jayutah said:

Of course we have never been to the moon.

But do you see the difference? In the WMD case there were legitimate experts on both sides of the issue. There was defensible logic on both sides of the issue.

There are no legitimate experts on the side of the moon hoax theory.

You are talking to a man who lives in a country whose leading "expert" on cot-death has just been struck off by the General Medical Council, after his false evidence led to three women being wrongly imprisoned for life on charges of murdering their own children.

Search Google for "Sir Roy Meadow"



Don't ever say to me "You are a truck driver, I am an expert, therefore my opinion is worth more" because I'm afraid that just won't wash.

Experts can make mistakes, no doubt about that. But if an Expert has evidence and the non-expert does not then I'd go with the expert. Once again, evidence should have nothing to do with "Does this look like..." "Or, does this thing look like it could do X..." Because unless you are an expert then asking you about the photos is silly, in fact, most experts wouldn't be able to tell you if the LM would work from just a photo, yet Sibrel asks you to say if it works from just that, and the average person who reads his site is no expert. Let me put it this way:


Look at that thing! It's wings are way too large, it's clunky, it looks like it's made of cardboard. It has next to no aerodynamics, it's all boxy. Yet we are expected to believe that it flew? Assuming that you didn't know that Biplanes like that flew what would you think? Yet it did fly, you know it did, so why should that be any different for the LM? Just because something looks unrefined doesn't mean it doesn't work.


About the wire: I think I see what the problem there is, and it's been explained before, but I'll have another go.
You say that it looks like the guy is pulled up by a wire. Fine, it does kinda look like that. However, I say it looks like the guy simply got to his feet with the help of his partner, which it also kinda looks like. We have reached an impasse, with no further evidence we might very well have to flip a coin to decide who is right. However, what the guy does to get up is covered in NASA procedures, and if that clip had audio you would hear the Astronauts talking about how to perform the manuver and so on. What we have now is two people making a claim, you and I, but while your evidence is what it looks like mine is what it looks like, live audio, and hard records. Now, unless you can provide more evidence it looks like I'm right.

[JayUtah]

Isolated incidents involving malfeasance or incompetence of individual experts does not deny the general maxim that experts are more knowledgeable about their subject matter than layman, and thus are generally presumed to make better informed decisions on those topics than laymen.

In the general case experts by definition have more knowledge than laymen. In the specific case, I am quite willing to pit my knoweldge of Apollo and space travel or photography against any pro-hoax "expert" you'd care to name, or against your knowledge.

Either way, expertise is material to this debate. Deal with it.