HB Contradictions

[Ginnie]

This small poll from the Loose Change Forum

Did we go to The Moon!
Yes [ 18 ] [64.29%]
No [ 10 ] [35.71%]
Total Votes: 28

If fits into what you are saying if the 35% held true for all CTs.

[svector]

phantomwolf said:

In the end HBs are just the same 9/11 conspiracy theorists

Why do you think that half the starting 9/11 CT's were HB's prior to 9/11 and the other half were Neo-Nazi? (one or two were both)

And don't forget the registered members of the Flat Earth Society, who also fervently believe in the Apollo hoax myth.

That's quite some company the HB's keep.

[dickshane]

Similar area to stutefish's point (#126):

The fact that someone like David S. Percy is a 'qualified' photographer, that so and so is (supposedly) a Professor of Physics, are very important facts indeed, and all lend weight and credence to the HBs' argument.

Meanwhile, the thousands of qualified scientists who don't believe Apollo was a hoax are not to be trusted.

Contradiction: a person's qualifications are very important if he supports the idea Apollo was a hoax, but irrelevant if he doesn't.

[scooter]

If our scientists can be bribed, then so can "theirs"...
I say the HB "expert witnesses" are being paid to appear and say their silly stuff...and I honestly will bet I'm right!

[JayUtah]

Since the financial position and public stature of their "scientists" is directly connected with the degree to which their conclusions are accepted, I'd say the question of bias is resolved. Those who oppose the hoax theories generally get paid and noticed principally for doing other things besides opposing hoax theories.

[nomuse]

In the world of the CT money buys loyalty. It doesn't matter what other work the scientist may be doing, work that gives him or her satisfaction, the admiration of their peers, salary and health benefits; a check from NASA (or whoever) is enough to make them claim whatever is required (or at the least, keep their silence).

On the other hand, even though selling books and videos on various conspiracies is lucrative, even perhaps a significant part of their personal income, these monies have no influence upon their conclusions or the rigor of their investigations.

[nomuse]

NASA had to meet the challenge of filming a lunar surface as close as possible to the real thing -- dust behavior, for instance -- even though there were no other landings that would be able to challenge their description.

On the other hand, NASA could pass of any old soil and rock as being authentic lunar samples -- despite the fact that the Russians had their own!

[alex04]

Contradiction:-

- NASA supplied information is used (however incorrectly) to bolster CT argument

(example source - [a href="[http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8688&st=60"][http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8688&st=60[/a], and can supply heaps more examples)

- NASA supplied information is not considered credible as they're in on the hoax

(no example needed)

[JayUtah]

I'm surprised Jack White hasn't tried to patent that move. A lot of his arguments boil down to his misunderstanding of NASA's claims as he interprets the evidence they provide, then dismissing other materials from NASA as disinformation if they should happen to contradict his interpretation directly.

Bart Sibrel borrowed that page from White's playbook. After a year or so if sheer denial, Sibrel finally admitted that the GET 20:38 telecast existed -- the one that clearly contradicted his theory. But in admitting its existence, he claimed it was a fake. So like White, Sibrel's criterion for whether some NASA data is real is whether it correlates to his belief.

[alex04]

Is it a contradiction that HB'ers 'are open minded', yet seemingly unable to play the devil's advocate in any moonhoax discussion/argument?

Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong in my assumption there - i guess i'm just yet to see it happen (while having played the D.A. many times myself to scrutinize a hoax theory).

At the very least it would show that you're being objective?

[nomuse]

Heh. If you suggest a more sensible alternative -- a better way to make the hoax -- you risk having your suggestion be adopted without acknowledgement by the HB crowd and used in argument against you. If you suggest a less-sensible alternative, however, you are accused of trying to put words in their mouth.

[alex04]

understand what you're saying numuse -

to be sort of specific though,

i had a discussion recently over an observance in a moon hoax video, the guy had a bit of basis for asking the question (even though it was on the premise that the whole thing was a hoax) so i offered to help look right into it. When it's purely a science question i try to get away from the 'i dont trust the government' and other anecdotal crap and focus on the problem - if i think it's a fair question that i can't answer, i'm more than happy to look into it.

So far the odditites observed have been able to be explained, all it takes is a bit of scrutiny, and even asking people who are experts in their field (and i'm not referring to debunk websites)

[JayUtah]

It's definitely a contradiction that conspiracists accuse others of being closed-minded, yet demonstrate no open-mindedness whatsoever in looking at their own beliefs critically. In a philosophy dominated by psychological projection, I guess a lot of those contradictions are going to arise.

[Mr Gorsky]

There is also an obsession with Apollo supporters' "lack of objectivity" (rocky, I'd be looking at you if you weren't suspended) when they themselves could be the poster boys for that very condition.

Incidientally (and off-topic) is conspiracy theorism a predominantly male sport? Certainly the bulk of the star HBs are blokes ... BS, Kaysing, Rene, Percy (albeit with Mary Bennett), Jack White, Cosmic Dave, Sam Colby, etc.

[BertL]

mrgorsky said:

There is also an obsession with Apollo supporters' "lack of objectivity"

Pot, kettle. It pops up in nearly every discussion.