PDA

View Full Version : do you support a conference to PROVE the apollo landings were REAL



FinalFrontier500
2011-Jun-18, 11:33 PM
I AM GETTING TIRED OF CONSPIRACY THEORIST.. its time NASA, scientist once and for all prove the moon landings were real...

i am proposing a conference, in which many experts... on both sides.. the side that believes it happened, the side that doens't.. and show evidence to why they believe the landings were real and fake, debates, presentations etc. etc.

a 3 day conference or something like that...

mantiss
2011-Jun-19, 02:20 AM
No, I don't. The problem with conspiracy theorists is that their grasp on reality and logic is flawed, so to propose to convert them to see truth by using reality and logic is therefore also flawed.

There is nothing to do, ignore them, sooner or later they will wean off, die off and there will be another "flavor of the day" conspiracy that will pop up. There's no way to eliminate delusional paranoia, so don't lose sleep over it and just move on.

Commodore
2011-Jun-19, 02:35 AM
I think we should send a team to investigate the landing sites.

cjl
2011-Jun-19, 02:43 AM
Honestly, I don't think it's worth the time or effort.

ravens_cry
2011-Jun-19, 02:54 AM
No, because one is guilty until proven innocent. It is the conspiracy theorists who are accusing NASA of fraud and murder, it is their job to prove there version of reality is actually so. All NASA doing a conference would do is give these people more publicity and exposure while doing absolutely nothing to convince a hardcore conspiracy theorist that we landed on the moon; they will just claim the evidence presented is fake, as they have done a million times before. Not that the videos astrobrant and svector do are not helpful, lies fester in the dark, but if they didn't believe NASA already, what would trying to "prove it" do?

Garrison
2011-Jun-19, 03:12 AM
No for two reasons:

1. The evidence for the reality of Apollo has been presented and explained many times, the HBs still don't believe it. Likewise their nonsense theories have been taken apart many times. One more time will not make any difference.
2. It gives them too much credence, as if there was some sort of equality between the two viewpoints, frankly you might as well invite flat earthers to a geology conference as do this.

amensae
2011-Jun-19, 03:16 AM
I think we should send a team to investigate the landing sites.
I once encountered a hoax-believer who claimed that NASA had sent an expedition to the Moon to plant evidence for the Apollo landings. Of course, this was the same person who believed that NASA had secret bases on the lunar farside while still believing that the landings were faked.
The force of logic is not strong with these people.

Swift
2011-Jun-19, 04:26 AM
I've moved this thread from Space Exploration to CT; it seems a better fit.

Swift
2011-Jun-19, 04:28 AM
No for two reasons:

1. The evidence for the reality of Apollo has been presented and explained many times, the HBs still don't believe it. Likewise their nonsense theories have been taken apart many times. One more time will not make any difference.
2. It gives them too much credence, as if there was some sort of equality between the two viewpoints, frankly you might as well invite flat earthers to a geology conference as do this.
Good reasons. I'll add a third.

If this forum is any measure, the Hoax Believers for the Moon landings are a passing phenomenon. In the last couple of years the number of such claims/threads/HBers has dropped off markedly. I think the majority of lovers of conspiracies have moved on to other things.

Tensor
2011-Jun-19, 04:46 AM
I think we should send a team to investigate the landing sites.

Heheheheheheh, either that or to the far side to check out the secret base. Really, the only problem with that Commodore, is that then someone would jump up with a conspiracy on whether the investagation team actually landed there.

Gillianren
2011-Jun-19, 04:47 AM
No, because we could use the money better to actually pay for space travel.

WreckedNeck
2011-Jun-19, 06:35 AM
No for two reasons:

1. The evidence for the reality of Apollo has been presented and explained many times, the HBs still don't believe it. Likewise their nonsense theories have been taken apart many times. One more time will not make any difference.
2. It gives them too much credence, as if there was some sort of equality between the two viewpoints, frankly you might as well invite flat earthers to a geology conference as do this.
Exactly!

Paul Beardsley
2011-Jun-19, 07:28 AM
No, a conference would not help.

The existence of Hoax Believers is frustrating and annoying, but I've found that they generally fall into two camps: 1. The ones with a vested interest in continuing to believe in (or otherwise promote) the hoax, possibly because they've released books or DVDs about it, or possibly because they've reached a point where they simply cannot back down. 2. The ones with a more casual belief. These people probably experienced a moment of revelation when they "realised" that the big event that happened before they were born was staged. They thus think that the people who didn't have this moment of revelation are naive for believing everything "the government" says.

The first camp are beyond redemption - the only thing we can do is counter their conspiracy nonsense when they are trying to promote it.

The second camp are another matter. They generally don't know much about the Apollo program - typically they don't know that there was more than one landing - let alone the Gemini and Mercury programs before it. In fact they generally don't realise how much information is available.

I have an otherwise very nice and very intelligent colleague who falls into the second category. Her main reason for believing in a hoax is that we don't regularly visit the moon now. When I pointed out that it's expensive, she replied, "Oh it's expensive, is it? Ah!" Which must count as the most misplaced sarcasm I've ever heard. Another colleague, joining in the conversation, apparently thought a compromise was possible, so he argued that we can be sure they sent unmanned probes, but perhaps not actual people. You can guess that neither of them have worked in engineering!

Anyway, rather than harangue them, I waited until a time when we were all in the room with a projector, and I showed two YouTube videos: one of a Landrover on a dirt track, and the other of the lunar rover. I pointed out that the Landrover was kicking up dust which billowed about for ages, whereas the dust kicked up fell down again in exactly the way you'd expect if there was no atmosphere. I finished with, "There's no way you can fake that."

They didn't say much, and I didn't press the point. But I could tell that at least one of them was rethinking her position. She'd probably never seen the lunar rover before - probably had no idea the film was even available.

So my approach is, be gentle but firm, and make information available to them. Ask them questions along the lines of, "How many people do you think there were in each Gemini capsule?" - not just to show up their lack of knowledge (although this can be constructive) but also to show them just how much information is available. If they make pronouncements such as, "The radiation in the Van Allen belt would have fried them," ask them, "Why do you think that?" (If they reply, "Because you need 20 inches of lead shielding," ask them, "How did you get that figure?" and so on.)

In short, encourage them to think.

slang
2011-Jun-19, 08:17 AM
I think we should send a team to investigate the landing sites.

Agreed. I'll go. :) SHOTGUN!!!111

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-19, 08:54 AM
No, a conference would not help.

The existence of Hoax Believers is frustrating and annoying, but I've found that they generally fall into two camps: 1. The ones with a vested interest in continuing to believe in (or otherwise promote) the hoax, possibly because they've released books or DVDs about it, or possibly because they've reached a point where they simply cannot back down. 2. The ones with a more casual belief. These people probably experienced a moment of revelation when they "realised" that the big event that happened before they were born was staged. They thus think that the people who didn't have this moment of revelation are naive for believing everything "the government" says.


And that gets into why I wouldn't support such a conference - I wouldn't want to help the ones making money off of their claims, and verbal debates (you know there would be debates at such a conference) are good for one-liners, but terrible for education, especially when dealing with subjects where details matter.

Limpkin
2011-Jun-19, 10:25 AM
Just make sure it's not the same week as the conference about whether Elvis is dead or not.

danscope
2011-Jun-19, 11:58 AM
These hoax believers aren't well grounded. A walk through their intelectual waters would'nt get your feet wet.

Sardonicone
2011-Jun-19, 02:01 PM
Since the Apollo landings have been proven to be real time and time again by the mountains of evidence to support them,. why do we need a conference to beat a dead horse?

Paul Beardsley
2011-Jun-19, 02:25 PM
Indeed. Why not have a conference to prove that water is wet? I just hope that Aqua-Dry and Apollo Hoax proponents don't ever get into a position where they can make important decisions.

Solfe
2011-Jun-19, 02:55 PM
I propose a conference where judges can enforce acceptable decorum by having Apollo era astronauts repeatedly punch unruly participants until they behave.

Of course, it wouldn't have much scientific merit but it could make for excellent entertainment. Maybe pay-per-view or something.

(Edit - I just noticed the OP requested three days... my idea would likely run a little longer.)

slang
2011-Jun-19, 09:15 PM
In a similar situation (in the science vs anti-science sense) there has been such a conference. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html) trial. It didn't change much. Despite the very clear and unambiguous ruling by Judge Jones there were complaints afterwards about all sorts of irrelevant details, few if any of them with any merit.

Luckmeister
2011-Jun-19, 09:30 PM
Indeed. Why not have a conference to prove that water is wet? I just hope that Aqua-Dry and Apollo Hoax proponents don't ever get into a position where they can make important decisions.

...Or be in a position of influence. Whoopi Goldberg said she thought the Moon landings may have been faked and she is in a position to state her opinions every day on national network television. I was watching The View the day she said that and have never watched it again.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Jun-19, 09:44 PM
...Or be in a position of influence. Whoopi Goldberg said she thought the Moon landings may have been faked and she is in a position to state her opinions every day on national network television. I was watching The View the day she said that and have never watched it again.

Yes indeed, I will add "be in a position of influence" to "make important decisions".

Strange
2011-Jun-19, 09:52 PM
Indeed. Why not have a conference to prove that water is wet?

But it isn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_water

So clearly water is hoax to sell more umbrellas.

ToSeek
2011-Jun-20, 01:17 AM
I'd like to see somebody like the Discovery Channel sponsor a mock-court case to cover the subject, if only to have a witness Q&A along the lines of:

"Mr. Armstrong, where were you on the evening of July 20, 1969?"

boppa
2011-Jun-20, 03:15 AM
I was with a group that looked at entering the contest to land a privately built moon rover (X Prize) before backing out after it was just going to be too expensive for the small number of people who could actually afford to put cash money into it.
Quite a few in the group were wanting to land at one of the sites simply to have a look around and see what effect the years have had on some of the stuff left behind (ie the nylon flags and the rubbish packages left behind, even such things as the experiment equipement housings and cables)

This would be more in the region of looking at the long term exposure to various materials on the lunar surface rather than proving `we went', but of course it also means we did go if we were looking at these effects....

(Seriously doubt it would actually have any real result with convincing the die hard believers, but might convince a few of the genuine `on the fencers')
Also would be a bit of `serious science' for something like the X Prize, rather than just a publicity stunt...

Jason Thompson
2011-Jun-20, 11:54 AM
I AM GETTING TIRED OF CONSPIRACY THEORIST

Sadly they will always be with us.


its time NASA, scientist once and for all prove the moon landings were real.

To any rational person who takes the time to look into the subject they have. The amount of material available is staggering, and far more than one person could reasonably hope to become conversant with in a lifetime. Under any reasonable criteria, NASA have fulfilled any burden of proof they may have had.


i am proposing a conference, in which many experts... on both sides.. the side that believes it happened, the side that doens't.. and show evidence to why they believe the landings were real and fake, debates, presentations etc. etc.

a 3 day conference or something like that...

There is one big problem with that. Firstly, the 'experts' on the conspiracy theory side are nothing of the sort. Secondly, such a conference only has a worthwhile result if both sides understand the basic tenets of sound logical argument. Conspiracy theorists are not rational or logical, and have not arrived at their conclusions that way. You cannot therefore rationally persuade them to change their beliefs.

Such a conference might well be good for the people who are not sure and who can be swayed by sensible arguments, but there will always be a portion of the audience who don't think that way and who will cling fervently to their belief that the whole thing was faked ragrdless of the arguments put forth. On this forum alone I've seen people insist that it could be faked despite an obvious inability to explain how, and they have stubbornly refused to acknowledge the slightest argument that they might be wrong. They even refuse to go out and do simple experiments or observations that would show the errors in their reasoning, so firmly determined are they to retain their belief that they are right.

There is, quite simply, NOTHING anyone can do to remove conpsiracy theorists from our midst.

NEOWatcher
2011-Jun-20, 01:44 PM
i am proposing a conference, in which many experts... on both sides.. the side that believes it happened, the side that doens't.. and show evidence to why they believe the landings were real and fake, debates, presentations etc. etc.
Three major questions...
What will NASA and the scientists present that hasn't already been presented and documented in many ways?
Who will attend this conference?
What do you do about the CTers that don't attend the conference?

All you're going to get is other CTers claiming that the CTers that went to the conference were wined, dined, paid off and brainwashed by the government.

Tedward
2011-Jun-20, 02:37 PM
I think you would have to set ground rules and this will trip up any reasonable approach, be used to tie anyone up with ambush topics etc. It would also come down to personalities I think. Anything outside the box of comfort would be treated with suspicion I think and it would not be taken seriously anyway. Nod and a wink arguments.

It would be good if there was a practical section for demonstrations but I fear the disruptive element before that was approached.

It would be good though if there were introductions at the start. Scientist A, what are your qualifications.... list as long as your arm. HB A what are your qualifications, did sommit on youtube.

Unless they were sure of their ground, I think they will avoid it at all costs.

starcanuck64
2011-Jun-20, 06:15 PM
No, for a lot of the good reasons already posted.

A conference would just give a public platform to people who already ignore the well established facts.

Limpkin
2011-Jun-20, 07:22 PM
Ali G interviews Buzz Aldrin, who addresses the conspiracy theorists who claim that the moon does not exist. About 1 minute in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNj1UOgacMA

kamaz
2011-Jun-20, 08:56 PM
The proposed conference would have the opposite effect. In his well known book on psychological manipulation, Robert Cialdini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cialdini) described the following situation. Some group organized a meeting, where they pitched their meditation technique (with a heavy dose of mysticism thrown in). They claimed that if you subscribe for the class, you will be able to do miracles... Well, I guess you know the deal. Anyway. Cialdini says he went there with another scientist, who was a hardcore skeptic. When the talk finished, the skeptic got up and started systematically debunking the claims made; he essentially tore everything down to pieces. The reaction of the audience was paradoxical; instead of going out, the people lined up to sign up for the class. When Cialdini asked them why, their response was I want to sign up before that skeptic manages to convince me this is all bunk. I want to believe!.

On the other hand, a conference about Apollo Hoax involving experts in psychology, sociology, information warfare and psychiatry would be very interesting and scientifically valuable.

Superluminal
2011-Jun-27, 12:59 AM
Why not a NASA conference on all of Hoagland's claims, Electric theory of comets, UFO's, or all woo-woo claims you can think of? Start with this and it will never end.

J Riff
2011-Jun-27, 11:39 AM
Negative.= meaningless side issue. I'm now for exposing the secret missions, please.

grapes
2011-Jun-27, 11:56 AM
I once encountered a hoax-believer who claimed that NASA had sent an expedition to the Moon to plant evidence for the Apollo landings.My all time favorite was the HB that cited a webpage as proof of a conspiracy, but the webpage was a spoof that maintained the lunar landings were filmed by Stanley Kubrick on location. :)

Swift
2011-Jun-27, 02:41 PM
Negative.= meaningless side issue. I'm now for exposing the secret missions, please.
J Riff,

I don't know what "secret missions" you are talking about. If you want to discuss such a thing, you will be required to defend these ideas. I also suggest you start your own thread on such a topic.

blueshift
2011-Jun-27, 03:37 PM
I think that having a conference to prove the Moon landings were real would be a complete waste of time. It would not change anyone's opinion about anything. People like to believe in nonsense. Look at all the people who pay their way into Wrigley Field each year. The 2003 nightmare there in the playoffs was so surreal that some outsiders actually thought it was rehearsed.

Trystero
2011-Jun-28, 05:51 PM
If this forum is any measure, the Hoax Believers for the Moon landings are a passing phenomenon. In the last couple of years the number of such claims/threads/HBers has dropped off markedly.
The same thing happened in Italy, in a conspiracy website called Luogocomune. Until two years ago it was full of very long discussions about the "moon-hoax" (one was 196 pages), but after the LRO pictures of Apollo landing sites in hi-res, the hoax believers, one by one, left the discussions. Now in the Moon section of the forum there are only old discussions, one about the UFOs seen on the Moon by the Apollo astronaut (so they went on the Moon! :-) ), one about the Elohim and the last one is entitled "The sad end of the moon-hoaxers".

So there is no need for a conference. The moon-hoax-believers are a dying breed.

Spoons
2011-Jul-06, 02:24 AM
I'd like to see somebody like the Discovery Channel sponsor a mock-court case to cover the subject, if only to have a witness Q&A along the lines of:

"Mr. Armstrong, where were you on the evening of July 20, 1969?"

Heheheh - that would be priceless.

The problem with (well, the waste of money in) having such a conference is as has been said many times over, here there and everywhere, that the default position of conspiracy theorists, one of their key tenets, is that the government/the powers that be have been, are and always will lie to us. Thus any evidence, argument or logic that contradicts their beliefs is easily written off as a lie.

They didn't have the technology to get there but, somewhat peculiarly, they have all manner of advanced technology (probably from reverse engineering an alien spaceship) as required to complete the requirements of any hoax proposition.

It's one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't scenarios. If you're concerned about winning HBs over then you're probably pushing the proverbial uphill. If you are keen to win over the fence-sitters there's surely better ways than a conference. Basic education, when applied, can overcome the bulk of the supposed hoax evidence.

Strange
2011-Jul-06, 08:20 AM
Thus any evidence, argument or logic that contradicts their beliefs is easily written off as a lie.

We have seen exactly this recently:
"I want a photo that could only be taken on the moon"
"What like this one"
"That is obviously a fake."
"Or this one"
"That is obviously a fake."
"What about this one"
"That is obviously a fake. The photo I want to see is obviously too difficult to fake and therefore doesn't exist. That is the photo that would convince me."
"That would be trivial to fake"
"I want a photo that could only be taken on the moon"
... repeat ad nauseam ...

Spoons
2011-Jul-06, 09:40 AM
Oh yeah, that one is always being trotted out when someone is backed into a corner.

NEOWatcher
2011-Jul-06, 12:58 PM
We have seen exactly this recently:
"I want a photo that could only be taken on the moon"
"What like this one"
"That is obviously a fake."

And those are the ones willing to look.

Some of them end where I quoted it with the remainder being:
"So if they faked that one, they must have a reason to fake it, therefore it's all fake."

Strange
2011-Jul-06, 01:04 PM
Yep. That and:
"How do you know the photos are faked"
"Because the Apollo missions never happened"
"How do you know that"
"Look at all these fake photos"
:wall:

chrlzs
2011-Jul-06, 01:08 PM
It's interesting to note that the increasingly infrequent moon-hoax postings are now, if anything, winning over new Apollo *believers*! There is now so much information out there, including new evidence like this earth-weather-matches-photographs (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3132) stuff. When you add that to LRO, Jaxa/Selene, Chandrayaan and all the other evidence, and the fact that there are so many very well-educated Apollo enthusiasts (not to mention the scientists and other professionals) posting refutations (like these Betamax efforts (http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio-6.html#post4137620)) of the hoax-idiocy - it's game over. It seems the only fence sitters that post or delurk, do so to agree that Apollo happened as advertised..

So, I would thank the Apollo deniers. They have helped to promote the reality of Apollo and destroy their own claims - largely by their own incompetence.

Spoons
2011-Jul-06, 01:13 PM
So, I would thank the Apollo deniers. They have helped to promote the reality of Apollo and destroy their own claims - largely by their own incompetence.

Well, to be fair, no amount of debating competence could beat such an amount of evidence for it happening. But you could thank them for raising the subject and creating the opportunity and stage on which to advertise the evidence to an audience beyond enthusiasts (who'd know anyway).

Obviousman
2011-Jul-07, 08:14 AM
Exactly like an exchange I had with Jack White. I accused him of automatically dismissing or ignoring evidence that would prove his claims wrong.

Not at all, he said; he'd always keep an open mind and look at new evidence.

However, since the Moon landings were faked, any evidence saying they were real must also be faked and so there was no point in examining faked evidence!

Yes, he really did say essentially that.


Yep. That and:
"How do you know the photos are faked"
"Because the Apollo missions never happened"
"How do you know that"
"Look at all these fake photos"
:wall:

jrkeller
2011-Jul-07, 10:26 AM
no

Noclevername
2011-Sep-04, 05:31 PM
Mythbusters already busted the top hoax myths. That's worth more than a dozen press conferences.

stutefish
2011-Sep-04, 08:22 PM
If the purpose of the conference is to support with evidence and reason the claim that the Apollo Project was real, hasn't that purpose already been amply served by the Apollo Project itself?

What would the conference do, that the Apollo Project hasn't already done? Exhaustive documentation of manned moon missions? Already done. Thousands of in-situ photographs of the mission hardware and personnel in the lunar environment? Already done. Extensive review by subject-matter experts from around the world, from geologists to space flight engineers? Already been done. Radio telemetry obtained by a wide range of disparate individuals and organizations, ranging the governments of (often hostile) nation-states to amateur radio enthusiasts? Already done. Televised press conferences and other testimony by the flight and ground crew of each mission? Already done.

I don't support a conference to prove the Apollo landings were real, because the conference has already been done.

dgavin
2011-Sep-06, 07:14 PM
If people are not goign to pat attention to the mounds and mounds of research and data that came from the Appolo missions (Video, Audio, Telemetry, sample returns, etc, etc etc...) then what good would a conference possibly do?

If some people arn't gonna belive facts, than getting up in front of a podium and expounding the facts isn't going to do any good. Besides if they want this sort of exponding of the facts, they can attend any number of astrophysics cirricullum's at any college offering those, where the professor's quite regularly do this in front of classrooms.

Skyfire
2011-Sep-06, 07:55 PM
And the latest LROC photos are nailing in many final nails in the conspiracy claims .... at least for many. There will still be a few die-hards, but as with most things there always seem to be a few for who facts mean nothing.

JayUtah
2011-Sep-06, 08:11 PM
I think the conference proposed in the original post would be a complete waste of time.

To suggest holding a conference of that kind is to suggest that there is any legitimate controversy, let alone that a conferential encounter would resolve such a controversy.

There is no legitimate controversy. Among the relevant qualified professionals, there is simply no doubt at all that the Apollo missions were real. Theirs is not a conclusion born of ignorance or apathy, but instead of diligent study and sufficient, well-supported expertise. It is not to be lightly dismissed, but hoax proponents do exactly on the basis of some imagined bias among professionals or en masse coercion to withhold the truth -- reasons that have nothing to do with the objectively determinable validity of the mainstream belief.

In short, the hoax believers' rejection of existing expertise has no rational basis, therefore would not be improved by expanded contact with the experts.

Long experience has shown that hoax claims tend to be predicated upon a deep and often willful ignorance of the methods used to accomplish the missions and of the sciences that govern those methods. The claims are further polluted by likely pecuniary and attention-seeking motives that bring the sincerity of their claims into question.

The evidence surrounding Apollo is plentiful and easily obtained. It is widely accepted and referenced by the relevant scholars and practitioners as a valid record of a true event. Hence there is no legitimate controversy over access to the data or its value. There is no need therefore to engage NASA to procure additional information or to make it accountable for disclosure.

Further, the hoax proponent community has demonstrated their unwillingness to accept or evaluate new evidence on a rational basis. As noted, the uniform response tends to be an unsupported affirmative claim of fakery. Hence there would be little value in a conference to discuss alleged gaps in the evidence. The evidentiary record is considered to be reasonably complete and valid, and the hoax proponents offer no rational basis for their contentions otherwise.

Hence according to the evidence as interpreted by the relevant experts and the objection of the hoax proponents, it would seem the authenticity of Apollo has already been proven to an acceptable degree.

It is unlikely that the public good would be served by such a conference. When it was announced that NASA would spend $15,000 to have a science author respond to the hoax claims, there was a great public backlash against what was perceived as a waste of public resources. The general public doesn't seem to believe the hoax theories require explicit addressing.

So I fail to see any redeeming value. Hoax proponents generally resist being informed and generally resist addressing contrary evidence. They resist involvement from legitimate expertise. And neither the relevant scientific communities nor the general public see any reason to doubt the prevailing interpretation of the historical evidence. It seems such a conference would serve only to improperly legitimize the hoax claimants; they could brag that NASA is taking their claims seriously.

What I think would be more useful is if all the hoax authors, proponents, believers, and advocates got together in a conference and at last presented us with a coherent alternative to the mainstream interpretation, instead of the hodge-podge of inconsistent and incomplete affirmative proposals.

Of course the first obstacle to any such thing would be overcoming the animosity that exists among the principal hoax authors, who have at times leveled accusations of treading on each other's turf. Sounds like there's a lot of confusion and controversy on that side of the fence. As for the pro-Apollo side, it has basically remained unchanged for decades.

JayUtah
2011-Sep-07, 07:32 PM
Mythbusters already busted the top hoax myths. That's worth more than a dozen press conferences.

I have to agree that the Mythbusters episode seems to be the watershed event in the decline of interest in Apollo hoax theories. I've seen that show cited in a number of venues as the "nail in the coffin." I don't know if that's because of the program's content (which was not all that large compared to the size of the theory) or to the popularity of the show.

pzkpfw
2011-Sep-07, 08:23 PM
Seems to mirror "that Fox documentary" as previously being one of the causes of an upswing in hoax theories.

JayUtah
2011-Sep-07, 08:58 PM
Seems to mirror "that Fox documentary" as previously being one of the causes of an upswing in hoax theories.

Yes, and this is a good point. I don't think the hoax theory will stay dead. I've noticed that pseudoscience tends to be cyclical with periods of between one and two decades. We have one generation of misconception that was nurtured by Fox and then culled by Discovery Channel. There will come another generation, I wager.

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-07, 09:25 PM
I don't know if that's because of the program's content...snip...or to the popularity of the show.

I hope it was content. I'd hate to think that a portion of the audience would accept Apollo as real not because evidence confirms it, but because they "like" the mythbuster hosts.

Garrison
2011-Sep-07, 09:44 PM
I hope it was content. I'd hate to think that a portion of the audience would accept Apollo as real not because evidence confirms it, but because they "like" the mythbuster hosts.

I think it's not so 'much' like as 'trust'; that is they will do an experiment and let the results speak for themselves, and they aren't afraid to be proven wrong.

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-07, 10:20 PM
I think it's not so 'much' like as 'trust'; that is they will do an experiment and let the results speak for themselves, and they aren't afraid to be proven wrong.

I guess trusting TV personalities who at least try to follow the scientific method isn't necessary a bad thing.

I just hope it was content. :)

JayUtah
2011-Sep-07, 10:38 PM
I hope it was content. I'd hate to think that a portion of the audience would accept Apollo as real not because evidence confirms it, but because they "like" the mythbuster hosts.

By "popularity" I mean that it reaches a large audience. You can say that BAUT and Mythbusters both have meritorious content, but the same topic presented on Mythbusters reaches a larger audience than if it had been presented at BAUT. That additional exposure may create a critical mass of skepticism, and I think that's what happened here.

Having participated in the Mythbusters creative process, I can attest that a fair amount of attention goes to television presentation, sometimes at the expense of empirical rigor or applicability. The Apollo episode was literally years in the making, because the episode concept relied on equipment that was not then available, or demonstrations that were too cerebral and lacked visual appeal.

Not to say it's all about explosions, but some avenues of investigation have to be shelved because they lack a dramatic presentation. As such, Mythbusters endures its share of criticism from scientifically-minded viewers. That said, the fact that Mythbusters pays attention to its viewers, responds to criticism, and evolved an interactive programming model makes it a highly credible source for many laymen.

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-07, 10:50 PM
....the fact that Mythbusters pays attention to its viewers, responds to criticism, and evolved an interactive programming model makes it a highly credible source for many laymen.

Yes there is that...it just this irrational concern I had that any argument be decided by "popularity"...so I feel better after reading your post.

...and on a side "note"..Gee it's good to have you back.

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-13, 10:38 AM
I really support such press-conference. I also support the initial decision of the agency to publish a book on the subject... hm, some of you prolly know that the book was to be written by Jim Oberg...

This should silence the hoax believers...

Spoons
2011-Sep-13, 10:53 AM
You can't turn over an irrationally made position with rational argument though, otherwise it never would have come to be in the first place. This is why it wouldn't silence hoax believers. And fence sitters will learn the truth as soon as they have enough interest to actually look into the hoax claims.

The only thing that would silence a hoax proponent (by which I'm speaking of those that propagate the myth for profit) is a lack of a market for their product.

Wasting more money on trying to win over the lost is madness - it's money that could make a significant difference in other areas, even be put towards future expeditions. I don't see it as an economically feasible venture.

captain swoop
2011-Sep-13, 12:01 PM
Why would a Conference filled with Hoax insiders or a book by NASA obviously filled with fake documants and photographs silence the hoax believers when the masses of fake evidence including tv and film footage and fake hardware in museums along with meteors collected from Antarctica doesn't convince them?

Zvezdichko
2011-Sep-13, 12:08 PM
I think we were talking about hm, fence sitters .. or something like that. As soon as more of them they're convinced, I guess that the rest of hardcore religious believers will become capsulated...

NEOWatcher
2011-Sep-13, 12:26 PM
I think we were talking about hm, fence sitters .. or something like that. As soon as more of them they're convinced, I guess that the rest of hardcore religious believers will become capsulated...
Fence sitters just need to be made aware of all the evidence and/or learn a little bit about science. Education will do that.

If they are willing to think that such a vast conspiracy has been made, then why wouldn't they think that a simple conference wasn't staged?

I don't want to get into an evolution discussion, but there is a good example of how effective something like this is.
The Kitzmiller v. Dover School District trial (explained on NOVA (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html)) can be considered more than just a conference because it used established laws and real people.
Since then, I see no difference in how evolution v creationism is treated. In fact, I think it's even worse since then.
The internet may have played a part, but if it did, then why didn't it play a part in the opposite direction?

Jason Thompson
2011-Sep-13, 02:12 PM
Why support a press confernece that would achieve nothing except to give the hardcore hoax believers more ammunition?

If NASA or anyone else expends time and effort on something designed to prove Apollo genuine then the hardcore crowd will say they are trying to deliberately cover it up, and the conference will just be one more thing added to their pile of 'ammunition' on which they can sell their crap books and videos. Worse, if there are any genuine hoax believers there and they get the chance to speak, they will be able to appeal to the layperson far more effectively than the detailed repsonses needed to rebut many of their arguments. That's how they operate in the first place: by appealing to the uninformed, by reinforcing their misunderstandings and then confirming that the record doesn't match them. To then challenge the misunderstandings and correct them to make the previously uninformed informed takes a lot of work, and many simply don't want to put in that effort to understand, or are unwilling to undertsand they might have been wrong for x years about something they thought the understood. On the other hand, if you deliberately keep the hoax believers from speaking they will cry foul.

Fence-sitters can see for themselves. Many of them are fence-sitting because they just don't know what material is available. It's not worth wasting money on a conference when huge chunks of it will now say 'go to this website'.

Hoax believers are a vocal minority, and not worth wasting time and money on.

Spoons
2011-Sep-14, 01:50 AM
That's how they operate in the first place: by appealing to the uninformed, by reinforcing their misunderstandings and then confirming that the record doesn't match them. To then challenge the misunderstandings and correct them to make the previously uninformed informed takes a lot of work, and many simply don't want to put in that effort to understand, or are unwilling to undertsand they might have been wrong for x years about something they thought the understood.

Indeed. I mean, if people still believe that a hairless raccoon is a chupa cabra or that flies, birds etc cannot be responsible for cow mutilations then it's going to be a lot harder to get them to understand all the physics behind getting to the moon. And given it's a momentus task then without a fair depth of knowledge it's not that hard to find an objection to us being able to achieve it.

Some people enjoy wilful ignorance. Personally I think the reality is far more interesting but if one doesn't want to stick their nose in and learn about how it was achieved, at a passing glance I can see how a conspiracy might be an entertaining concept. It is quite Hollywood - deception, outright lies, murder, sometimes aliens and getting away with a crime.

jrkeller
2011-Sep-14, 02:02 PM
No.

The Luanr and Planetary Institure (LPI) has a conference on the moon every year, and the Apollo missions have a lot of papers about thier finds.

JayUtah
2011-Sep-14, 06:06 PM
...

I really support such press-conference.

The original poster is not proposing a press conference, but instead a sort of academic conference in which "experts on both sides" debate the relevant claims. A press conference is typically a presentation by some subject-matter expert followed by questions from media representatives who at least purport to cover the subject dispassionately. They are at worst advocates for the lay public, not advocates of any one point of view. In contrast an academic conference is one in which open questions are debated among equally-qualified experts and new findings are presented.

But there are no experts on the hoax side. There are only professors of ignorance, and ignorance is not a point of view that demands respect. The whole notion of an academic conference is predicated on the very wrong presumption that there is any substance whatsoever, from an objective standpoint, in the hoax claims. As we have belabored, the hoax belief does not arise from a legitimately different interpretation of allegedly ambiguous evidence. It arises wholly out of a strong desire to believe such a thing, for reasons that have nothing to do with the strength of the evidence. Hence the other erroneous premise behind such a conference is that the debate it would embody would be founded upon a common epistemology.

I also support the initial decision of the agency to publish a book on the subject.

But the American public did not. In that sense, the hoax claimants are already encapsulated, as you suggest would be the case. The American public soundly demonstrated that there is no such need for a book because the hoax claims don't even rise to a minimal level of credibility in the real world.

This should silence the hoax believers...

Has Clavius.org silenced the hoax believers? Of course not. It just gives them more fodder for their evasive and misleading methods. Nor would Oberg's book silence them. Most fringe believers already dismiss both Oberg and myself as shills for the Establishment, regardless of the objective truthfulness of what we say and write.

Yes, Clavius, Oberg, Mythbusters, and BAUT provide resources for the fence-sitters, but the hoax claimants won't be reasoned out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

Spoons
2011-Sep-15, 02:41 AM
...won't be reasoned out of a position they did not reason themselves into.
That was the phrase I was looking for in my post, rather than my awkward sounding version.

And nicely said, Jay.

fjcamper
2011-Sep-30, 11:39 PM
Why support a press conference that would achieve nothing except to give the hardcore hoax believers more ammunition?If such a conference provided evidence that there was no hoax(ing), then what kind of ammunition would they gain? Rubber bullets? :whistle:
If NASA or anyone else expends time and effort on something designed to prove Apollo genuine then the hardcore crowd will say they are trying to deliberately cover it up, and the conference will just be one more thing added to their pile of 'ammunition' on which they can sell their crap books and videos.NASA has a history replete with debunking, I fail to see the great damage that would be done if they continued within their own, set guidelines.
Worse, if there are any genuine hoax believers there
I would be for one and they get the chance to speak, It would be unreasonable and counterproductive in an academic environment not to allow them to do so
they will be able to appeal to the layperson far more effectively than the detailed responses needed to rebut many of their arguments. That's how they operate in the first place: by appealing to the uninformed,Or the INformed according to your/my perspective
... On the other hand, if you deliberately keep the hoax believers from speaking they will cry foul. Imagine that. An academic conference where one of the opposing sides do not allow debate.:think:

Van Rijn
2011-Oct-01, 12:49 AM
[B]If such a conference provided evidence that there was no hoax(ing), then what kind of ammunition would they gain? Rubber bullets

The evidence has been presented many times. The hoax video producers would ignore it as always, and say that this was another attempt of "the government" to cover up "the truth" and welcome the free advertising.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-01, 12:56 AM
It would be unreasonable and counterproductive in an academic environment not to allow them to do so.

Thing is, hoax believers do not come from an academic environment...they don't deserve a "seat at the table" of serious discussion.

Garrison
2011-Oct-01, 01:41 AM
If such a conference provided evidence that there was no hoax(ing), then what kind of ammunition would they gain? Rubber bullets? :whistle:NASA has a history replete with debunking, I fail to see the great damage that would be done if they continued within their own, set guidelines. It would be unreasonable and counterproductive in an academic environment not to allow them to do soOr the INformed according to your/my perspective Imagine that. An academic conference where one of the opposing sides do not allow debate.:think:

You make the flawed assumption that such a debate would be between two equal camps, where perspective and opinion count. It would be nothing of the sort. The reality of Apollo has a mountain of evidence on its side and the Hoax Believers have little more than 'looks like', 'seems to me' and of course 'if I ran the zoo...' This is not some subjective issue where everyone's opinion should be given equal weight, this is a matter of objective fact and and if the HB's haven't accepted the evidence by now they never will.

Jason Thompson
2011-Oct-01, 10:01 AM
If such a conference provided evidence that there was no hoax(ing), then what kind of ammunition would they gain? Rubber bullets?

There is already a mountain of evidence that there was no hoaxing. A literal mountain, were you to actually gather it all in one place. But that's a mountain of facts. Hoax believers don't use facts, they use obfuscation and their own limited understanding. Examples are replete on this very board.

A hoax believer asks a question.

Someone provides a detailed answer with verifiable things the HB can do to show where their own understanding was flawed.

The HB dismissed it as excessive verbosity and refuses to even try. They also accuse the person doing the explaining of delivering misinformation.

So, if NASA schedules a conference, many many HBs will seize on it as an attempt to spread misinformation before even listening to a word that is said.


It would be unreasonable and counterproductive in an academic environment not to allow them to do so

Well you show me an academic hoax believer argument and I'll give it fair hearing in an academic conference.


Or the INformed according to your/my perspective

No, I did mean the uninformed. The uninformed as in the people who don't know about radiation, computers, technology or space flight beyond what they see in Hollywood. The people who think radiation = deadly = massive lead shields needed. When they already have that misconception ingrained in their minds it is a hell of a lot harder to shift that and make them understand the realities than it is for an HB to appeal to their existing misconceptions and reinforce them.


Imagine that. An academic conference where one of the opposing sides do not allow debate.:think:

Debate is fine. HB rhetoric is not debate.

Gillianren
2011-Oct-01, 04:51 PM
There are some things you cannot have a reasonable debate about. The Apollo landings happened, and there's no reasonable debate about that. No informed person believes that the Apollo landings didn't happen, because it's impossible to look at the evidence and believe it was all faked.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-01, 06:05 PM
There are some things you cannot have a reasonable debate about. The Apollo landings happened, and there's no reasonable debate about that. No informed person believes that the Apollo landings didn't happen, because it's impossible to look at the evidence and believe it was all faked.
Rather, it's because your definition of "informed person" is that they looked at the evidence and was convinced. :)

From several other subjects, including ID, it rather looks like it's entirely possible for informed persons to look at evidence and not be convinced, if the evidence flies in the face of their existing beliefs.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-02, 08:07 PM
...

If such a conference provided evidence that there was no hoax(ing),...

Stop right there. You can't prove a negative. There is no such thing as evidence that proves something doesn't exist or didn't occur.

There could be evidence that a hoax occurred, but none has been forthcoming. What's put forward as evidence is an indirect case where hoaxing is the default conclusion. That is, the hoax believers structure the argument to say that if Apollo's authenticity can't be proven to some arbitrary standard, then the default conclusion must hold. In this way they pretend to prove their belief without actually testing it.

There is a veritable mountain of evidence that Apollo succeeded largely as claimed. So any academic conference would simply reiterate that data, which is already held as valid and conclusive in the academic and professional world. It's considered valid in the lay world too. It's only rejected by a handful of people, and then only for irrational reasons. But it is this mountain of evidence that hoax believers try desperately to explain away. And they do so largely by begging the question and by unsubstantiated affirmative rebuttals.

...then what kind of ammunition would they gain? Rubber bullets?

No, the conspiracists thrive on attention, and that's exactly what they'd get by having a NASA conference aimed specifically at them. Even if the evidence soundly refuted them -- which it does, and we know this -- they'd forever be able to say that NASA finally took them seriously and showed that they were genuinely afraid of their accusations.

NASA has a history replete with debunking...

No, it isn't. NASA generally ignores conspiracy theorists. And for good reason: there simply isn't any legitimate issue. When NASA finally decided that public perception might be served by a debunking of the hoax theories, the paltry sum of $15,000 that was allocated to do it was loudly shouted down by the American public. Apparently the U.S. taxpayer doesn't want his dollars spent debunking. That shows how credible those claims are in the real world. Hoax claimants seem to have delusions of credibility.

I fail to see the great damage that would be done if they continued within their own, set guidelines.

NASA's guidelines are to ignore conspiracy theorists. And that seems to be a good policy. NASA's credibility isn't substantially damaged by having those hoax claims out there; there are far more useful and valid ways to criticize NASA.

It would be unreasonable and counterproductive in an academic environment not to allow them to do so

Hogwash. Academic freedom doesn't cover incompetence or ignorance. Do you really expect professional geologists to sit in an academic conference and listen to wild speculation about how the Apollo samples were "baked in a radiation oven?" Academic freedom covers theories that differ legitimately within the state of the art, not people who don't have the faintest clue what they're talking about.

Or the INformed according to your/my perspective

No. They appeal to people who don't know anything about space travel either, so that they can't call the hoax claimants on their hogwash.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Oct-02, 08:30 PM
Hoax claimants seem to have delusions of credibility.

Amusing and pertinent.

ngc3314
2011-Oct-04, 07:09 PM
It's not really the same thing, but the Smithsonian will host an online conference on "Conspiracy theories in aerospace technology: a lesson in critical thinking" (http://www.smithsonianconference.org/conspiracy/) on October 28. The conference writeup mentions the Apollo hoax theories, Amelia Earhart, UFOs, and Pearl Harbor. Teachers and students are invited to register and ask questions. Roger Launius will lead the Apollo discussion; online resources should be available in mid-month.

thomas13
2011-Oct-05, 05:28 PM
No for two reasons:

1. The evidence for the reality of Apollo has been presented and explained many times, the HBs still don't believe it. Likewise their nonsense theories have been taken apart many times. One more time will not make any difference.
2. It gives them too much credence, as if there was some sort of equality between the two viewpoints, it unkly you might as well invite flat earthers to a geology conference as do this. i just ignore conspiracy theorists they chat rubish with no evidence to back it up i mean reliable evidence

Garrison
2011-Oct-06, 06:18 PM
i just ignore conspiracy theorists they chat rubish with no evidence to back it up i mean reliable evidence

I'm not clear what you mean. We already have plenty of reliable evidence for the reality of Apollo and there's no such thing as reliable evidence for the Hoax theory(ies).

Donnie B.
2011-Oct-07, 12:23 AM
i just ignore conspiracy theorists they chat rubish with no evidence to back it up i mean reliable evidence

A little punctuation might help. I read it as:

I just ignore conspiracy theorists. They [talk a lot of nonsense] with no evidence to back it up -- I mean, reliable evidence.

Or shorter thomas13: "They got nothin'."

ember
2011-Oct-08, 06:57 PM
No, I think NASA actually did go to the moon. But then again maybe there should be a conference so that we can finally quell the doubts of the conspiracy theorists on this subject.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Oct-08, 07:05 PM
Welcome to BAUT, ember.

If you read the rest of the thread, you'll see that the point most of us agree on is that the conference would do nothing to change the minds of the conspiracy theorists.

Garrison
2011-Oct-08, 07:23 PM
No, I think NASA actually did go to the moon. But then again maybe there should be a conference so that we can finally quell the doubts of the conspiracy theorists on this subject.

The problem is that the hardcore of HB's don't have doubts, they have crackpot theories that contradict the totality of the Apollo evidence and nothing will budge them. Sure there are fence sitters but I suspect a conference would just confuse them more by implying there's a reason to take the HB's seriously.

Obviousman
2011-Oct-09, 10:59 AM
The problem is that the hardcore of HB's don't have doubts, they have crackpot theories that contradict the totality of the Apollo evidence and nothing will budge them. Sure there are fence sitters but I suspect a conference would just confuse them more by implying there's a reason to take the HB's seriously.

I agree with this. I would love a conference to rub the noses of HBs in reality, but they will simply wipe it off their faces and continue to sprout their own mantra. There are people who hear the HBs and have doubts; I have all the time in the world for them. Then there are the HBs who, when you show them wrong, simply go to the HB book of excuses:

- Gubmint did it
- They altered all the records
- People are too scared to speak out
- You are just a sheeple and won't see Da Truth
- You are a disinfo agent, aren't you?
(insert your favourite list)

For these people, I have nothing but scorn.

I can accept ignorance; wilful ignorance is reprehensible.

Craigboy
2011-Oct-10, 08:33 AM
I AM GETTING TIRED OF CONSPIRACY THEORIST.. its time NASA, scientist once and for all prove the moon landings were real...

i am proposing a conference, in which many experts... on both sides.. the side that believes it happened, the side that doens't.. and show evidence to why they believe the landings were real and fake, debates, presentations etc. etc.

a 3 day conference or something like that...
No amount of evidence would end the conspiracy theories, a conference would probably just breath life into the old.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-11, 10:24 PM
I applaud the motives of people who are suggesting we should hold a conference. Even though I support the mountain of skepticism that says such a conference would probably be counterproductive, the fact remains that hearers of the conspiracy theory desire a swift and, if possible, conclusive resolution to it.

The problem is that the conspiracists thrive on attention, yes, but on attention in the form of ongoing controversy. They are relevant only when they seem to have a relevant objection or disputation. The last thing the conspiracists want is a resolution of any kind. They garner fame and make money only when the controversy persists, even if they have to trump up the controversy.

Usher
2011-Oct-14, 03:21 AM
I applaud the motives of people who are suggesting we should hold a conference. Even though I support the mountain of skepticism that says such a conference would probably be counterproductive, the fact remains that hearers of the conspiracy theory desire a swift and, if possible, conclusive resolution to it.

The problem is that the conspiracists thrive on attention, yes, but on attention in the form of ongoing controversy. They are relevant only when they seem to have a relevant objection or disputation. The last thing the conspiracists want is a resolution of any kind. They garner fame and make money only when the controversy persists, even if they have to trump up the controversy.

Agreed. However, as "resolution" is, by definition, what CTs do not wish, any and all CT attention would go attacking even the smallest and most benign inconsistencies in data, documentation, records, and verbal accounts. We've seen it on this board, from the "unprofessional" behavior of former astronauts (no one who acts that way could have landed on the moon!), their recall or lack thereof of seeing stars (someone is lying), and all manner of filling in perceived gaps or errors with more drivel. It would be a CT circus of clowns and hucksters. Methinks little or no good would come of it.

Mellow
2011-Oct-14, 01:21 PM
i just ignore conspiracy theorists they chat rubish with no evidence to back it up i mean reliable evidence

By the way, thomas13, welcome to the board!

robonoid
2011-Nov-18, 04:50 AM
The best way to end the controversy is to build a base on the moon and start mining it for mineral resources. Once someone is making MONEY off of it, everyone will settle down and just accept that we are on the moon.

Garrison
2011-Nov-18, 07:24 PM
The best way to end the controversy is to build a base on the moon and start mining it for mineral resources. Once someone is making MONEY off of it, everyone will settle down and just accept that we are on the moon.

I think you are being optimistic, the HB's will ignore anything that contradicts their beliefs and stand by their views regardless of how clearly they are shown to be wrong.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Nov-18, 08:02 PM
I think you are being optimistic, the HB's will ignore anything that contradicts their beliefs and stand by their views regardless of how clearly they are shown to be wrong.

However did you come to that conclusion?

(Reads various threads and HB websites.)

Oh, right.

Garrison
2011-Nov-18, 08:21 PM
However did you come to that conclusion?

(Reads various threads and HB websites.)

Oh, right.

Actually my best evidence begins with a 'P' and ends with '1000'. :)

Van Rijn
2011-Nov-18, 10:03 PM
The best way to end the controversy is to build a base on the moon and start mining it for mineral resources. Once someone is making MONEY off of it, everyone will settle down and just accept that we are on the moon.

Some HBs would still insist that the Apollo landings were faked. If artifacts were shown from the landings, some would insist they were planted there later. It would be similar to HB arguments that the LRO was built to send faked image data.

Other HBs would insist that anyone claiming they went to the Moon either were part of a conspiracy or had been mindwashed to believe it.

We had a fellow that insisted the ISS was faked because he apparently had some notion that space travel was impossible. When some here posted pictures they took in their own backyards, he accused them of being part of a world-wide conspiracy.

moog
2011-Nov-18, 10:32 PM
We had a fellow that insisted the ISS was faked because he apparently had some notion that space travel was impossible. When some here posted pictures they took in their own backyards, he accused them of being part of a world-wide conspiracy.

Sounds familiar, I was in a very similar conversation.. When I pointed out that anyone (even the HB) could take a similar photograph he suggested the ISS was a hologram.
At which point conversation is pointless.

Bobbar
2011-Nov-19, 01:34 AM
Some HBs would still insist that the Apollo landings were faked. If artifacts were shown from the landings, some would insist they were planted there later. It would be similar to HB arguments that the LRO was built to send faked image data.

Other HBs would insist that anyone claiming they went to the Moon either were part of a conspiracy or had been mindwashed to believe it.

We had a fellow that insisted the ISS was faked because he apparently had some notion that space travel was impossible. When some here posted pictures they took in their own backyards, he accused them of being part of a world-wide conspiracy.

I think I've ran into this person. Did they also claim that flecks of debris were actually bubbles?

Clive Tester
2011-Nov-19, 01:48 AM
Folk who spout the hoax theory today, are of the same mind set of those who I remember from 30 or so years back, who would moan about the cost of the moon landings at the mere mention of space travel: Good material for someone’s psychology thesis I think.

Glom
2011-Nov-19, 01:27 PM
Folk who spout the hoax theory today, are of the same mind set of those who I remember from 30 or so years back, who would moan about the cost of the moon landings at the mere mention of space travel: Good material for someone’s psychology thesis I think.

How so?

I think that generalises a little too far. The core of hoax belief is a whole different kind of loony. The people to whom I think you refer are more of the college know-it-all type who says what they think are non-conformist, anti-establishment things just to feel a bit rebellious and smarter than the average joe who just does what he's told by the man. I've known a few who would subscribe to hoax belief for that reason. But it's never a particularly devoted belief. They're going for the idea just to upset the apple cart. They make up the softer rim of hoax belief.

Flat Handle
2011-Nov-19, 02:36 PM
This conferene accomplishes nothing, if they don't believe from the evidence alreay, what will change.

Clive Tester
2011-Nov-19, 09:45 PM
How so?

I think that generalises a little too far. The core of hoax belief is a whole different kind of loony. The people to whom I think you refer are more of the college know-it-all type who says what they think are non-conformist, anti-establishment things just to feel a bit rebellious and smarter than the average joe who just does what he's told by the man. I've known a few who would subscribe to hoax belief for that reason. But it's never a particularly devoted belief. They're going for the idea just to upset the apple cart. They make up the softer rim of hoax belief.

Excellent.

You “hit the nail on the head” here exactly.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Nov-19, 10:00 PM
Not that I'm bothered either way, but is there a reason why this thread is lingering on so long? The OP is long gone and everyone seems to agree it would be a counterproductive idea.

Jason Thompson
2011-Nov-19, 10:06 PM
Is there any reason it shouldn't? Surely the thread will linger on as long as anyone feels the urge to post to it? Is there any reason to stop it lingering on? So what if the OP has gone and everyone broadly agrees? This is a discussion forum, isn't it?

Glom
2011-Nov-20, 08:48 PM
Not that I'm bothered either way, but is there a reason why this thread is lingering on so long? The OP is long gone and everyone seems to agree it would be a counterproductive idea.

Oh Paul. If only you knew how pertinent your post was.

;)

Clive Tester
2011-Nov-22, 12:51 PM
Not that I'm bothered either way, but is there a reason why this thread is lingering on so long? The OP is long gone and everyone seems to agree it would be a counterproductive idea.
It is worth it purely for post number 100: I think I'll add it to my Facebook profile favourite quotes.

JayUtah
2011-Nov-22, 03:49 PM
Someone may come along tomorrow with a good reason for having such a conference.

AGN Fuel
2011-Nov-23, 06:28 AM
Someone may come along tomorrow with a good reason for having such a conference.

Well, I for one love having a chat to people that worked on the Apollo missions and have been fortunate enough to have had that privilege on a few occasions now.

At a conference there would be plenty of them! Forget the HBs and chat to some real life interesting people.

R.A.F.
2011-Nov-23, 06:03 PM
Well, I for one love having a chat to people that worked on the Apollo missions and have been fortunate enough to have had that privilege on a few occasions now.

At a conference there would be plenty of them! Forget the HBs and chat to some real life interesting people.

How about having that conference, and simply "forget" to invite the HB's? :)

Luckmeister
2011-Nov-23, 06:42 PM
How about having that conference, and simply "forget" to invite the HB's? :)

I love it!! -- makes me wish BAUT had a Like button (not connected to FB). :D

JayUtah
2011-Nov-23, 08:46 PM
How about having that conference, and simply "forget" to invite the HB's? :)

Agreed. And actually most of the hoax theorists don't like each other, so it would be fun to have another conference just for them and webcast the ensuing battle.

Swift
2011-Nov-23, 08:59 PM
Agreed. And actually most of the hoax theorists don't like each other, so it would be fun to have another conference just for them and webcast the ensuing battle.
How about we just lock them all together in a room and let them fight it out. I suggest this room (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/180414main_spf_1000.jpg). :D

For those not familiar with that room, it is the vacuum chamber at NASA's Plum Brook Station

R.A.F.
2011-Nov-23, 09:06 PM
How about we just lock them all together in a room and let them fight it out.

This Sunday, only...see Bart, "ouch my jaw", Sibrel take on Jarrah, "watch my video", White in non-stop caged thunderdome action...this Sunday only...

NEOWatcher
2011-Nov-28, 08:10 PM
How about we just lock them all together in a room and let them fight it out. I suggest this room (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/180414main_spf_1000.jpg). :D
With or without air?
Room temperature or cryogenic?

Strange
2011-Nov-29, 12:05 PM
For those not familiar with that room, it is the vacuum chamber at NASA's Plum Brook Station

You mean the one where they faked all those moon photos ...

I hope it's not necessary, but just in case: :)

Mellow
2011-Nov-29, 02:27 PM
die die die thread... just die!

El Jefe
2011-Dec-01, 07:36 AM
Well, I would like to get a word in edgewise before this thread goes away.

I may discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories a bit. Rest assured, it is relevent, and is not an attempt to derail this thread.

Full disclosure: I used to work as a NASA contractor in Mission Control (did so for many years), and knew quite a few people from the Apollo days, everything from astronauts and Flight Directors on down to guys who monitored lunar science experiments in the bowels of the MCC.

A few months ago, I was roped into a debate on 9/11 conspiracy theories with an architect who was a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. I think I acquitted myself well, and for my sins was invited to give a lecture on the subject to a civic group where I live.

The room was unusually full for this meeting; besides the usual members, several local 9/11 Truthers (HBs) turned out. I gave about a 2 hour talk, complete with about 60 PowerPoint slides, most of which were illustrations of one sort or another. I walked through the evidence about as thoroughly as one could in a couple of hours, and concluded with about 5 minutes or so on Confirmation Bias (which is why I think so many of these hoaxes are so popular).

Most of the regulars were either neutral or were on my side to start with. My talk was very well received by that group.

The 9/11 Truthers who were present were having nothing to do with it. Several could not wrap their brains around the fact that I was no longer accepting a paycheck even indirectly from Uncle Sam, and were convinced I was hiding my employment. They could not conceive of why I would go before the public and tell such "lies"; one even went so far as to ask me how much I got when I sold my soul.

One point in my talk was that when World Trade 7 (the 47-story skyscraper across the street from the Twin Towers) collapsed, there were several good audiotapes made of the event and none of them recorded the sound of an explosion. I had no loudspeaker system to play that audio for my audience, so I showed them slides from a video shot 2000 feet from the building that showed there was no crowd reaction when the building collapsed. The collapse starts 40 seconds into a 1:37 segment, and doesn't conclude until about 49 seconds in.

After my talk, one of the Truthers accused me of deliberately misleading the audience, because "I should have known better that sound would take 2 seconds to travel the 2000 feet between the collapsing building and the camera." Never mind that I explained that throughout the entire segment, which ran for about 48 seconds post collapse, that you couldn't hear any explosions.

So, if you want to have a conference or a debate on the Apollo landings, understand that's the sort of hard-core denial you will run up against. I think JayUtah hit the nail on the head about a couple of pages into this thread. There is no limit to the appeals to authority, junk science, selective quoting, selective reading of NASA documents, and just general absurdity that HBs will resort to so that they can maintain their position. It doesn't matter if 99% of all aerospace engineering PhDs believe the moon landings were real, the 10 out of 1000 who argue that they were faked will be drawn to the HBs like moths to a flame. And knowing that 990 out of 1000 are against them, the HBs will chant, "See? There are all these PhDs who know that the moon landings were faked! What could anyone know that they don't?" If you put a sample of moon dust in front of them, they will find some discrepancy in the 3rd decimal point of the analysis (provided by NASA, of course) that "proves" the stuff could never have come from the "real" moon. And so on.

Right after I gave my talk, the host approached me to express how impressed he was with the depth and quality of the information I'd assembled that showed, yes, the buildings really did collapse because of fire. He was anxious to make my slides available on the net, becuase he was certain this would have a big effect on the 9/11 debate, and would "let the air out of the Truther's sails". I was happy to give him a copy, but I bit my tongue, having no illusions that the information would change any of their minds. And sure enough, in the couple of weeks since that talk, I've beem bombarded with emails about how ignorant I am, how I ignored so many "facts", and why I was so crass as to ignore all that eyewitness tesimony against my position (a large part, from my perspective, was testimony that was quoted out of context). Of course it solved nothing.

So would a conference/debate/south-side throwdown about the moon landings. Haters gotta hate? Well, hoaxers gotta hoax.

Bobbar
2011-Dec-01, 07:54 PM
(SNIP)

And sure enough, in the couple of weeks since that talk, I've beem bombarded with emails about how ignorant I am, how I ignored so many "facts", and why I was so crass as to ignore all that eyewitness tesimony against my position (a large part, from my perspective, was testimony that was quoted out of context). Of course it solved nothing.

So would a conference/debate/south-side throwdown about the moon landings. Haters gotta hate? Well, hoaxers gotta hoax.

You ignored eyewitness testimony?! How dare you... ;)


P.S.: Welcome to BAUT. Experienced and interesting people like you are the reason I signed on here.