PDA

View Full Version : BA Debates Bart Sibrel once again: Monday at 5:00 central time



The Bad Astronomer
2005-Dec-11, 08:36 PM
Folks-- I'll be "debating" Moon Hoax purveyor Bart Sibrel on the radio Monday at 5:00 central time. I'll have details on my blog (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog) on Monday morning. You'll be able to listen live to the thrashing (http://www.971talk.com/streaming/index.aspx) as well.

Wolverine
2005-Dec-11, 08:41 PM
*cues Dragnet theme*

Frantic Freddie
2005-Dec-11, 09:43 PM
Remember: Hit the soft parts with your hand,hit the hard parts with a utensil.

peter eldergill
2005-Dec-11, 09:57 PM
Just be careful....don't let him lead you anywhere.

I'm sure you can take of yourself, though. Good luck

Pete

turbonium
2005-Dec-12, 06:06 AM
Hi, BA. It sounds interesting. You mention that you will again be debating Bart Sibrel - how many times have you done so previously? Are these debates archived online? I would very much enjoy reading (or hearing) the past discussions. Thanks.

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Dec-12, 07:54 AM
I debtaed him on the radio once and on MSNBC. The latter was not so good, though the radio one was fun (and I trounced him). I don't think they are archived anywhere, though I have them on tape. Someday I'll convert them to digital. :-)

By the way, the blog entry is up (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2005/12/11/mooning-st-louis/).

Wolverine
2005-Dec-12, 06:26 PM
The MSNBC appearance wasn't bad at all. I thought the only difficulty there was having to deal with the skimpy time constraint.

R.A.F.
2005-Dec-12, 06:41 PM
I am so hoping that Bart will mention his super-duper, exclusive, top secret Apollo 11 footage. :lol:

...I just wish I could figure out how to listen to it. I've followed all the instructions on the site to enable active x, but that's not helping...

JayUtah
2005-Dec-12, 07:11 PM
I took notes on all of the BA/** appearances, so I know the questions and answers.

Sibrel likes to spring things on people; that's the special nature of the sound bite. He can ask a question that would take perhaps hours of research to answer, and since his respondent has 30 seconds to answer off the top of his head, Sibrel comes off sounding as if he's stumped his critics. That's the big reason why I generally don't consent to "sound bite" appearances. If you aren't interested in information in-depth on such a large topic, then it largely doesn't matter what you believe or why.

But one thing I'd definitely bring up is that is "secret" backstage footage comes largely from the 30-minute live telecast, not from the test blurbs that were included on his same reel. Because of the scary-looking disclaimer title, Sibrel wrongly concluded that everything on his reel had been secret and that very little had been shown to the public. Most of the brief clips he uses in A Funny Thing... (e.g., the pull-back from the window and the cabin light) are actually from the telecast that was seen by millions. So Sibrel's voiceover interpretation trying to explain that this was astronauts trying to get the fake shot right is totally out to lunch.

I would definitely bring up the footage that Sibrel doesn't show from his reel. You can see it on the Spacecraft Films DVD. It's a brief, unnarrated view out the CM window showing the distant Earth, but also showing the window frame and the CSM interior. The motion of the Earth relative to the window as the camera position moves clearly demonstrates that the Earth is outside the ship and considerably far away. Here's an animated GIF of the relevant portion of the clip:

http://www.clavius.org/img/distant-earth.gif

Wolverine
2005-Dec-12, 08:35 PM
FYI: I'll have the Paltalk chatroom (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=624189#post624189) open today for the event.

JayUtah
2005-Dec-12, 09:12 PM
Unfortunately I'll be swinging from the battens at the theater at that time and won't be able to hear it live.

Wolverine
2005-Dec-13, 12:31 AM
Wow, I didn't realize Michael Shermer was going to be on the program. Talk about fish in a barrel...

Maksutov
2005-Dec-13, 12:43 AM
Half an hour in and the same old Bart. He just keeps repeating the same debunked claims over and over. Plus apparently having a "kiss up to the woowoo" host doesn't help.

Good point-by-point review of the facts by Phil and Michael Shermer. Sibrel's interruptions just serve to help make Phil's and Mike's points.


BTW, "97.1 FM TALK younger smarter better": somebody writing slogans for that station who used to work for NASA?

Maksutov
2005-Dec-13, 12:47 AM
Unfortunately I'll be swinging from the battens at the theater at that time and won't be able to hear it live.Wow! What's the production, West Side Story?

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Dec-13, 12:48 AM
Yeah, Sibrel's a pip. I don't know if he simply doesn't do any research (like, say, typing words into Google) or stops short of finding anything real, or forgets what he read, or simply lies. But it's one of those for sure. I can find simple answers to his questions in seconds on the web.

He is actually still claiming the shadows are evidence. Wow.

Wolverine
2005-Dec-13, 12:51 AM
What a dodge by Sibrel! Yeesh! I wish he'd answer the question of what evidence he'd accept that would demonstrate the landings were genuine.

Maksutov
2005-Dec-13, 01:04 AM
What a dodge by Sibrel! Yeesh! I wish he'd answer the question of what evidence he'd accept that would demonstrate the landings were genuine.I think a key to Bart is that he will always avoid any response that might have a negative impact on the sales of his fiction-based productions.

The quick response re the Sibrel Armstrong/bible/$5K proposal turn down, that "Neil Armstrong is a classy guy." was very classy.

Sibrel wound up sounding just the opposite and stuck in a rut. As usual.

Wolverine
2005-Dec-13, 01:16 AM
Listening to him weasel around the questions and refutations reminded me of attempting to nail a piece of jello to the wall.

01101001
2005-Dec-13, 01:20 AM
Listening to him weasel around the questions and refutations reminded me of attempting to nail a piece of jello to the wall.
Who won? Jell-o or nail?

Maksutov
2005-Dec-13, 01:29 AM
Who won? Jell-o or nail?In this listener's humble opinion the Jell-o nevertheless got nailed. As a noted thespian and a quoted politician once wrote, "Facts are stubborn things."

GDwarf
2005-Dec-13, 01:47 AM
The first time I've ever heard Mr. Sibrel talk, and I must say, his very tone of voice struck me as arrogant.

I couldn't help but notice that he'd make his point in simple terms that seemed to make sense on the surface, then defended them against science with simple views of how things worked. Now, obviously that won't fool any scientists, but he used the time limit etc. to make his argument sound good to the average person watching the show, although it was a victory for Phil, it was closer then I would've liked, simply because public opinion probably hasn't swayed that much.

However, I found that he loved to associate Apollo with bad things, OJ Simpson, the Holocaust, etc. No good in the debate, but an interesting strategy anyways.

He didn't raise any new points, and I found him to be very rude, interrupting whenever the discussion wasn't going his way, choosing topics that would take a while to explain (the shadows come to mind), and that would work better with photos then words (again, shadows). An interesting duck at the end, shifting the focus away from himself to others, and then, and I love this part, Attacking Phil for taking physical evidence above personal testimony.

His line went something like this: "What would it take for either of you two to believe that Apollo was hoaxed." Schermer said that if Neil said that it was faked that his belief would be shaken, Phil said that nothing could shake his, as he had physical proof, at which point Bart went on a rampage about how Phil wouldn't accept actual witness testimony.

Anyways, it was a neat experience, although I actually hope that they don't do that 'rematch' that the host talked about.

Anla'Shok
2005-Dec-13, 01:47 AM
When did WVB go to Antarctica and come back with "800" lbs of lunar rocks? Is this documented ? 800lbs is convieniant. Boy this guy makes fairy tales up better than the Brothers Grim.

You rock BA. IMHO Mike distracted a little, you could have nail ** one-handed. Interesting what ** can also stand for.

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Dec-13, 02:54 AM
Sibrel was confused (horrors!). About 800 pounds of rocks were brought back from the Moon. That is far, far more than the total known lunar meteorites found. As usual, he just makes stuff up and says it like it's fact.

PhantomWolf
2005-Dec-13, 02:59 AM
Well not only that, Phil, but the first Lunite was discovered in 1979 and identified in 1981, over a decade after Apollo, and it was able to be identified because of the Apollo Samples. I'm not sure how you can get numerous soil samples and 8 foot long core samples from lunites either........

Bean Counter
2005-Dec-13, 03:45 AM
Plus apparently having a "kiss up to the woowoo" host doesn't help.

Cite?!? Were we listening to the same radio show? Dave was not kissing up to anybody. I thought he was respectful of all three of his guests and faciliated the debate. Beyond that, I must have missed the part where he was kissing up to B.S.

You are probably not use to his style of humor.


BTW, "97.1 FM TALK younger smarter better": somebody writing slogans for that station who used to work for NASA?

It probably takes a "rocket scientist" to make talk radio work on the FM dial. It's definitely the first of its' kind in St. Louis. Everything else is on AM.

turbonium
2005-Dec-13, 04:16 AM
Dang! My work prevented my catching the show live. Will it be available at the link or elsewhere later on?

Wolverine
2005-Dec-13, 04:22 AM
Plus apparently having a "kiss up to the woowoo" host doesn't help.

I didn't think it was that bad. There wouldn't have been much point in inviting Sibrel on if they weren't going to at least give him a chance. ;)

Anla'Shok
2005-Dec-13, 04:24 AM
I also liked how Bart kept trying to draw a comparison between himself and Copurnacus (SP?). How C. was condemned for his belief that the Earth was not the center of the Univ. All the while Bart is the condemning anyone who believes the PROOF we went to the moon.

I wish I was better at the words. Sorry, the ideas sound great in my head but just don't make it to the keys.

paulie jay
2005-Dec-13, 04:48 AM
Is there a copy of this available anywhere? I alway miss the fun... http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/traurig/a050.gif

Wolverine
2005-Dec-13, 04:56 AM
You didn't miss much. Same ol' Sibrel.

Gregtj
2005-Dec-13, 05:31 AM
It was quite a contrast. Bart was (is) sticking so rigidly to his guns, yet making such lame arguments. It really does boggle the mind, to think that anyone could be taken in by such crap. I was both impressed by Phils performance, and frustrated by Barts refusal to answer the final question regarding what it would take to make you abandon your position. I would love to see Bart vs Phil in a properly moderated debate where the moderator could demand that questions be answered and not dodged. Of course Bart would never agree to such a debate. He would be destroyed.

Many thanks to Wolverine for setting up the chat room with the live feed. That was alot of fun!

Wolverine
2005-Dec-13, 05:42 AM
Anytime, Gregtj, it was a hoot. And, welcome to the forum.

Maksutov
2005-Dec-13, 07:46 AM
Originally Posted by Maksutov
Plus apparently having a "kiss up to the woowoo" host doesn't help. I didn't think it was that bad. There wouldn't have been much point in inviting Sibrel on if they weren't going to at least give him a chance. ;)That was prompted by the host's statement about 20 minutes in that he had seen Sibrel's video and (I believe) visited his website and was very impressed with the important things ** had to say about Apollo.

Now, if that was tongue-in-cheek, well, that's a drawback to radio: you can't pick up on the facial and/or body language. Plus, if it was meant as dry humor, then, despite my being from New England, I nevertheless didn't pick up on it. Visual cues probably would have helped. You know, like http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif .

And, old Bart certainly made sure he had a chance, to the point of constantly interrupting and talking over Phil and Mike. Video wasn't necessary for the rudeness to come through very clearly. That lunar knuckle sandwich was obviously well-earned. Another :clap: for Buzz!

GDwarf
2005-Dec-13, 12:58 PM
I also liked how Bart kept trying to draw a comparison between himself and Copurnacus (SP?). How C. was condemned for his belief that the Earth was not the center of the Univ. All the while Bart is the condemning anyone who believes the PROOF we went to the moon.

I also liked how he, at first, seemed to slip up over his words and claimed that Copernicus was locked up for 300 years due to his beliefs, which, as I pointed out in chat, was quite the feat, as he only published his work on his deathbed.


Anyways, I didn't find the announcer supported Bart, heck, at the start of the show he was very anti-Bart.

Anyways, probably the crowning lines were as follows:

"Indipendant astronomers watched the Apollo flights, they could see when the astronauts vented..."
Bart interrupts"Then why is there no video/photographic proof made by anyone but NASA? If you really could see this then why didn't any astronomers take pictures of it?"
Phil takes over "Well, I just typed 'Apollo mission venting' into Google and got several images right here"
"Well, they're from astronomers, not an indipendant source, as if no one could fake pictures of what venting would look like."

Jim
2005-Dec-13, 03:21 PM
His line went something like this: "What would it take for either of you two to believe that Apollo was hoaxed." Schermer said that if Neil said that it was faked that his belief would be shaken, Phil said that nothing could shake his, as he had physical proof, at which point Bart went on a rampage about how Phil wouldn't accept actual witness testimony.

I didn't get to listen to the broadcast. Did anyone pont out that it's Sibrel who refuses to accept "actual witness testimony" and relies instead on "physical proof?"

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-13, 03:26 PM
"Physical proof"? Even in quotation marks, that just makes me wince. Sibrel doesn't rely on anything that could be called "proof" in any format I know of.

Hutch
2005-Dec-13, 05:49 PM
I have actually had the opportunity to see Mr. Sibrel in person (along with BABBler Archer28) about 18 months ago when he 'premiered' his 'film' "Astronauts Gone Wild" or something like that.

He is a glib speaker and has his lines down just fine, and has already anticipated most of the questions unprepared questioners are likely to ask (and he is smart enough to recognize and aviod the smart ones). He presents a fine, manly figure and works God into the equation which does play well, especially in the South.

Yet there is something about him, well, I know most would say fake, but that's not the word I'm looking for. More Elmer Gantry-ish, perhaps, in that he knows what he's doing is woo, but he has so much staked in it and has done it so long that it is his reality.

As I've said before, I'd love to see him come down South out of Nashville about a hundred miles and try his spiel in Huntsville (home of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center). Somehow, with all the real 'rocket scientists' here, I don't think it would go over very well...

JayUtah
2005-Dec-13, 06:07 PM
I also liked how Bart kept trying to draw a comparison between himself and Copurnacus (SP?).

Very astute. Many pseudoscientists compare themselves to mavericks of the past who were later vindicated. Unfortunately in their zeal to claim they're right just because the mainstream opposes them, they forget that while people also laughed at Copernicus, they also laughed at Doctor Wobodny's Snake Liver Oil and Laxative. Rightly so. The few people in history who challenged the mainstream and were right are far outweighed by the thousands of hucksters who had their ten minutes of fame and then faded appropriately into the fog of history.

Copernicus and Galileo and scholars of that ilk faced not scientific opposition but religious and political opposition. Sibrel instead faces opposition from people who are well-versed in science and can refute him from a position based on proven empiricism and detailed understanding. People who opposed Galileo et al. said it just didn't jive with their religious beliefs, which they took to be axioms. Galileo instead argued empirically. Sibrel is attempting to argue empirically, and he's being refuted empirically.

And the vindicated mavericks were arguing theories and explanations: things that can't have been agreed-upon objectively at the time. Sibrel is simply trying to pull a fast one with the facts. There is a difference between arguing whether the Earth moving around the sun or vice versa best explains the observations in the heavens, and arguing that the sun comes up in the north -- the latter is better akin to what Sibrel does.

What is most obnoxious is Sibrel's attempt to characterize himself as the lone voice of reason among an "inquisition" of entrenched ideologues. In fact Sibrel's first film argued, irrespective of evidence, that the moon landings are suspect because they offended God! So on the list of labels we can apply to Sibrel, I supposed "hypocrite" should now appear.

R.A.F.
2005-Dec-13, 06:09 PM
I have actually had the opportunity to see Mr. Sibrel in person (along with BABBler Archer28)

Archer28? Is he related to Archer17? :)


...he knows what he's doing is woo, but he has so much staked in it and has done it so long that it is his reality.

I get that impression also (I've seen him on TV). He's convinced himself, and to him that's all that matters...

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-13, 06:13 PM
Sibrel seems to me to be very... driven. If not by profit, then by something else. He was driven enough to harrass several former astronauts, and driven enough to appear on radio and television shows several times. He's driven enough to make a living off what he says, and driven enough to put a lot of effort behind it (it does seem like a lot of effort on this end, at least).

The sad part about it all is, I can't say for sure if he truly believes it or not. He does seem to be somewhat intelligent, though. I'm sure that if you pulled him into a conversation outside of the "woo", you'd actually find him to be of relatively normal mentality.

R.A.F.
2005-Dec-13, 06:16 PM
Yeah...it really is hard to know what's going on in his mind...

JayUtah
2005-Dec-13, 07:14 PM
If memory serves, Copernicus was never imprisoned for his beliefs or for any other reason, although he did delay publication of De revolutionibus for fear of unfavorable reception and attendant persecution. And as I recall, the scientific minds of the age, among which Copernicus' theories had been circulated, generally responded favorably.

Sibrel may be thinking of Galileo, who wrote a century later and was indeed convincted by the Inquisition and sentenced to a sort of house arrest. And unlike Copernicus, who generally maintained good relations with the Church, Galileo was steadfastly at odds with them and published Dialogo under less than straightforward circumstances. Some have thought that Galileo's punishment had far less to do with his ideas than in the manner in which he flaunted them in the face of the Church.

All that aside, Sibrel's comparison either to Galileo or to Copernicus is hardly warranted. These men produced monumental works of scientific reason. They did not write books entitled Cardinals Gone Wild.

Wolverine
2005-Dec-13, 08:03 PM
These men produced monumental works of scientific reason. They did not write books entitled Cardinals Gone Wild.

:clap:

R.A.F.
2005-Dec-13, 08:09 PM
All that aside, Sibrel's comparison either to Galileo or to Copernicus is hardly warranted. These men produced monumental works of scientific reason. They did not write books entitled Cardinals Gone Wild.

Galileo certainly didn't "stalk" members of the church, calling them names...the Pope didn't have to punch him just to shut him up...:lol:

peter eldergill
2005-Dec-13, 08:13 PM
Galileo certainly didn't "stalk" members of the church, calling them names...the Pope didn't have to punch him just to shut him up...


That would have been funny!

Pete

Gillianren
2005-Dec-13, 09:52 PM
All that aside, Sibrel's comparison either to Galileo or to Copernicus is hardly warranted. These men produced monumental works of scientific reason. They did not write books entitled Cardinals Gone Wild.

See, that, I'd read. I've not bothered with anything Bart Sibrel has done except his enchanting Daily Show interview.

Maksutov
2005-Dec-14, 10:40 AM
See, that, I'd read. I've not bothered with anything Bart Sibrel has done except his enchanting Daily Show interview.You must have a unique and very personal view of the word "enchanting"! http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

peter eldergill
2005-Dec-14, 02:44 PM
What did Mr. Siebrel have to say about the interview I wonder...

Pete

Joe Durnavich
2005-Dec-14, 03:52 PM
...Galileo, who wrote a century later and was indeed convincted by the Inquisition and sentenced to a sort of house arrest.

Yeah, a house arrest in the comfy chair!

Jason Thompson
2005-Dec-14, 05:02 PM
Some have thought that Galileo's punishment had far less to do with his ideas than in the manner in which he flaunted them in the face of the Church.

Having recently read the Dialogue, I have to say that would be my impression. His scientific arguments are well reasoned and illustrated with some excellent analogies (as an aside, it is clear that Galileo understood the concept of relative motion centuries before it became forever associated with Einstein). What lets the Dialogue down is the manner in which a) it portrays Simplicio, the character who represents the geocentric view, and b) the way he (Galileo) frequently goes off on a tangent to argue, whether through the words of Sagredo (the neutral) or Salviati (the heliocentrist), about how stupid his opponents are for believing what they do.

JonClarke
2005-Dec-14, 06:09 PM
[b]Copernicus and Galileo and scholars of that ilk faced not scientific opposition but religious and political opposition.

As a matter of fact Galileo faced extensive scientific opposition during his life. As I recall it was only after 25 years of contraversy that the church was reluctantly dragged into the business.

Coperincus's book was only placed on the index because of what were regarded as three errors of logic that bad nothing to do with his astronomical system. if these three logical errors (three short phrases) were removed the book was off the index. Compared to the savaging that most papers get today in peer review this was very mild.

Most opposition to Darwin following the poblication of "The Origin" was also scientific.

The difference between Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin on one hand and Sibrel and his ilk on the other is that the aforementioned trio's ideas have been supported by evidence and independent research. the smaller matter that all three knew what they were talking about was also not irrelevant.

Jon

JonClarke
2005-Dec-14, 06:13 PM
The Inquisition knew of Dialogo before its publication, and there is some argument that Galileo had done a bait-and-switch and thereby fooled the Inquisition into licensing the book without being told its true content. So in addition to the unfavorable light in which Galileo paints the Church-approved view, there is also the alleged sneakiness of publication.

Galileo certainly had a positive genius when it came to alientating people who could have been his allies

Jon

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-14, 06:26 PM
What lets the Dialogue down is the manner in which a) it portrays Simplicio, the character who represents the geocentric view, and b) the way he (Galileo) frequently goes off on a tangent to argue, whether through the words of Sagredo (the neutral) or Salviati (the heliocentrist), about how stupid his opponents are for believing what they do.

Yeah, that's the main problem right there. Alienating your opponents by claiming they're stupid, or insulting them, is not a feasable way to win their respect, and especially win them over to your side, no matter how well-reasoned your argument is.

Latowski
2005-Dec-14, 06:31 PM
Yeah, that's the main problem right there. Alienating your opponents by claiming they're stupid, or insulting them, is not a feasable way to win their respect, and especially win them over to your side, no matter how well-reasoned your argument is.


And dangerous when they have a lot of power and are not shy about (ab)using it.

JayUtah
2005-Dec-14, 06:34 PM
It's important to realize that Galileo's ideas in Dialogo were not unheard-of at the time, and that previous proponents of those ideas had been condemned as heretics and executed by the Inquisition. Galileo had political connections that prevented him from being condemned to death, but that didn't stop the Inquisition from putting Dialogo on the Index and from doing what they could against him.

The Inquisition knew of Dialogo before its publication, and there is some argument that Galileo had done a bait-and-switch and thereby fooled the Inquisition into licensing the book without being told its true content. So in addition to the unfavorable light in which Galileo paints the Church-approved view, there is also the alleged sneakiness of publication.

JayUtah
2005-Dec-14, 07:48 PM
The other thing I wanted to mention in this thread is Sibrel's rhetorical treatment of the "eyewitness testimony" issue. He has gotten mileage before out of my statement that a hypothetical hoax admission by Armstrong would not be enough by itself to change my mind. I agree with Phil, and I expect Dr. Shermer can clarify himself the statement that his belief would be "shaken". (I presume he means he would reconsider the entire question in light of the admission, as would I, but not necessarily commit to changing his mind just upon having heard it.)

In the abstract, this simply the Bellwether strategy. The conspiracists want to oversimplify broad, complex questions down to a proposition that can be easily sustained or falsified, and which leapfrogs to the desired conclusion. The most common one in the moon hoax theory is the radiation question: "Regardless of what else might be the case it was impossible to endure the radiation in space, so it's a foregone conclusion the missions were faked -- they had to be." Once the reader is convinced by this line of reasoning that the missions were faked, the conclusion can be played as a trump card any time some other argument runs afoul of the facts. If I say, "But you can't come up with a reasonable scenario for how the low-gravity and vacuum effects were accomplished in the videos," then he can say, "But I don't have to -- since we know a real landing wasn't possible, NASA obviously came up with some way to do it even if I can't figure it out." It becomes all-purpose spackle for patching up even the largest holes in an argument.

That's obviously not how real research works. Any theory has to take all the evidence into account and provide a substantial explanation for any observation that appears to contradict the hypothesis. Glossing over difficult questions by asserting the conclusion prematurely is a logical boo-boo. You don't make a strong argument by assuming that "somehow" the loose ends all get tied up because you "know" the outcome.

So when I say that Armstrong's confession by itself wouldn't change my mind, that's to reject the notion that Armstrong's assertion of success is the sole basis for believing in Apollo's authenticity. Armstrong is only one of twelve men who make substantially similar claims with substantially similar authority. His prominence as the first to have done it doesn't give him any more evidentiary value than the other lunar surface crews. And the twelve astronauts' testimony is only a very small part of a gargantuan mountain of physical, documentary, and other eyewitness testimony to the success of Apollo.

The analogy I draw is to ask whether an admission by Dwight Eisenhower that D-Day was a huge hoax would deter someone from believing that it actually happened. If that were to happen, you would rightly point to the other testimony affirming it, and to the physical evidence remaining from the battle. Ike's stature as the mastermind of the operation does not make his word inviolate, nor does it invalidate what can be observed objectively by others.

And this works into the comparison of eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. People who learn about investigative techniques by watching Hollywood detective shows generally get the idea that eyewitness testimony is somehow more reliable or more desirable than physical evidence. In fact, both in the legal and scientific contexts, the opposite is true. A shell casing can't change its story and become an orange peel halfway through the investigation. Although the collection and interpretation of physical evidence introduces possibilities for unreliability, the evidence itself does not change or become subject to lapses of memory or emotional considerations.

agingjb
2005-Dec-14, 08:35 PM
Why would a statement by Neil Armstrong, under unlikely and presumably distressing circumstances (duress or dementia), have any effect on our belief in events, the moon landings, which certainly occurred?

GDwarf
2005-Dec-15, 12:17 PM
Why would a statement by Neil Armstrong, under unlikely and presumably distressing circumstances (duress or dementia), have any effect on our belief in events, the moon landings, which certainly occurred?
The statement was, if Armstrong, while under no duress and while sound of mind, made the statement that the landings were faked that people would reconsider it, and possibly have their views changed, or at least, that's what it sounded like to me.

gwiz
2005-Dec-15, 12:29 PM
Personally, I'd need an explanation of how it was all faked, moon rocks, tracking and communications, laser reflectors, films apparently made in a low gravity vacuum, the lot.

Bob B.
2005-Dec-15, 02:09 PM
Personally, I'd need an explanation of how it was all faked, moon rocks, tracking and communications, laser reflectors, films apparently made in a low gravity vacuum, the lot.
I agree completely. A statement that it was faked isn't enough without providing a plausible explanation of how they managed to fake all the seemingly credible evidence.

jrkeller
2005-Dec-15, 03:14 PM
I agree completely. A statement that it was faked isn't enough without providing a plausible explanation of how they managed to fake all the seemingly credible evidence.

Also, where did all the money come from to do create all this faked material and to pay off the people to keep quiet and continue to keep quiet all these years.

jrkeller
2005-Dec-15, 03:23 PM
I just noticed that there are two new one-star reviews (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000059MCV/qid=1134660052/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-3845008-9601708?n=507846&s=dvd&v=glance) of Bart's movie on amazon.

peter eldergill
2005-Dec-15, 07:47 PM
I read a couple of the reviews and now I feel dirty....uggh.

I notice that by and large, people gave it 1 star or 5 stars, not really anything in between. Hilarious.

Pete

Faultline
2005-Dec-15, 10:22 PM
I read a couple of the reviews and now I feel dirty....uggh.

I notice that by and large, people gave it 1 star or 5 stars, not really anything in between. Hilarious.

PeteWe need more skeps to watch the movie and give it realistic reviews on every site that gives us a chance.

:lol:

jrkeller
2005-Dec-16, 02:23 AM
I think amazon is the only place that sells his movie.

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-16, 02:41 AM
We need more skeps to watch the movie and give it realistic reviews on every site that gives us a chance.

:lol:

As long as the skeptics don't actually pay for it. Talk about a waste of money.

Sticks
2005-Dec-16, 05:25 PM
Someone on the blog discussion did an MP3 of this, so I downloaded it and listened to it twice. (The first time I fell asleep :neutral: )


Bart did seem to get one shot in goal, mainly by inuendo rather than any science

Sorry Phil

The reference was about receiving money from NASA, even in the form of grants. The assertion being that Phil might be seen as a biased source, as if Bart with all his video deals and book deals is totally impartial :rolleyes:

However by flagging that, Phil was put on to the defensive and the ill informed listener might be given the suspicion that Phil is in the pay of the evil gubment.

This is where JayUtah has the edge over Bart, such an allegation can not be made.

Phil I am not sure what the best tactic is on this one :(

kookbreaker
2005-Dec-16, 06:20 PM
How about: Even if he was fully employed by NASA, the facts are still on his side.

jrkeller
2005-Dec-16, 06:23 PM
The reference was about receiving money from NASA, even in the form of grants. The assertion being that Phil might be seen as a biased source, as if Bart with all his video deals and book deals is totally impartial :rolleyes:


I believe that Phil does not or has never recieved grants directly from NASA. If his place of employment is like all the reserach institutes that if worked for or was like all the places that I've reviewed grant proposals for, the grant money goes directly to that institution (for their overhead) and he then recieves a salary.

Faultline
2005-Dec-16, 06:27 PM
I believe that Phil does not or has never recieved grants directly from NASA. If his place of employment is like all the reserach institutes that if worked for or was like all the places that I've reviewed grant proposals for, the grant money goes directly to that institution (for their overhead) and he then recieves a salary.
Doesn't matter to even a moderate HBer. If you're on NASA's mailing list, you're a tainted source and can't be considered impartial.

Think about it. Bart asked why didn't any independant astronomers photograph the mission. When Phil offered several sites found by Googling, Bart backpeddled and claimed that they're astronomers, not impartial.

Huh? What's all THAT about?

PhantomWolf
2005-Dec-17, 01:27 AM
This is where JayUtah has the edge over Bart, such an allegation can not be made.

Wanna bet?

Jay has openly admitted that he does work for Boeing.

Boeing has the contract for the new CEV and is thus funded by.... NASA.

Thus Jay is being indirectly paid by NASA to keep him quiet, and it's done in a round about way so that people won't notice it.

Sticks
2005-Dec-17, 05:01 AM
I see I am as up to date as ever :cry:

jt-3d
2005-Dec-17, 11:35 AM
And that's what Bad Bart alluded to about Phil, on the show. Thanks for pointing me to the recording of the show btw, Sticks. And of course thanks to he who taped it for those of us who can't tell time.

JayUtah
2005-Dec-17, 06:28 PM
Boeing is my customer; I don't work for them directly. If you include everyone who has ever made something that was bought by someone who later provided something for NASA or the government, then who might be left out?

Sticks
2005-Dec-17, 06:45 PM
The way that Bart said it, just seemed to undermine Phil's authority to speak on the subject, i.e he was the "NASA stooge" sent to deal with a "heroic whistleblower" :(

Obviousman
2005-Dec-18, 04:47 AM
Boeing is my customer; I don't work for them directly. If you include everyone who has ever made something that was bought by someone who later provided something for NASA or the government, then who might be left out?

You know, I think if you look hard enough you could find that Sibrel got money from NASA somehow.

Obviousman
2005-Dec-19, 06:12 AM
I've just listened to the interview that I downloaded from the Blog.

Although Mr Shermer and the BA did a credible job, I think they came off second best.

Why do I hold this opinion?

Well, I think there are three types of people in this "debate": The 'faithful' who will listen to and believe Mr Sibrel no matter what evidence is place before them; the 'Apollogists' who have researched the subject and know that the evidence for the landings is overwhelming and the claims against are invalid; and the 'unsure' who listen to both sides.

The 'unsure' will generally be people who do not necessiarly have the advantage of a good education, or who might not take the time to research the subject. These people will generally take 'facts' as stated. What sounds better probably is.

The big problem with these people is that when Mr Shermer and the BA start to dismiss items as ridiculous (as they are) and give some general scientific reasoning, the 'unsure' can easily think it is all scientific double-talk.

The 'non-parallel shadows' is a good example. It was wise to explain that an undulating surface can cause this effect, but I would have liked to see them raise the point about doing it yourself. When challenged with this "proof", tell the audience:

"Well, I can explain why this appears so, but even better is to prove it to yourself. Grab your camera and go outide. Pick late afternoon when the shadows are long, and set things up like this...."

Don't just explain to them how it can be done; ask them to go out and do it for themselves. The evidence in front of their own eyes, taken by them, will be compelling.

Mr Sibrel had the habit of mentioning his website every chance he got; I was glad to see the BA took the opportunity to mention BAUT and Clavius.org as well. I think it would have been better if in each case the BA said something like "..and you can see for yourself how this is wrong by visiting URL.XXX and it shows clearly how Mr Sibrel is totally wrong!" Adopting some of the opposition tactics is not necessarily reducing yourself to their level.

You can point out their tactics by remarking upon HOW Mr Sibrel gained access to these astronauts through devious and deceptive means; how many times he has hounded these people, made accusations; that will illustrate WHY many of the astronauts will not talk to him. You should also point out the times that they have affirmed the facts to Mr Sibrel - on camera - and he does not publicly show the refuting of his claims.

Essentially, both Mr Shermer and the BA try to use honest and fair means against this man - it won't work. If the opposition uses a gun in a knife-fight, you still end up dead.

I'd also like to see Jay be introduced as a "surprise" guest during any future debates. No offence to Mr Shermer or the BA (whom I hold in very high regard), but Jay is a master in the art of the logical debate. He can point out logical errors and demolish an opposition. His TRUE art is in that he can do this without necessarily having to introduce scientific fact into the debate. He has the ability to use the same tone and language as the opposition in showing how they are false. People don't need to understand the method behind his arguements; he simply reverses the 'facts' that they claim and demonstrates how wrong they HBs are.

Sorry for the rant, but my 2c.

JayUtah
2005-Dec-19, 02:45 PM
...Jay is a master in the art of the logical debate. He can point out logical errors and demolish an opposition. His TRUE art is in that he can do this without necessarily having to introduce scientific fact into the debate.

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but the fact remains that this too takes time. I can't do it in the 30-second time-slices you get in a radio interview. Regardless of who has the best facts at his disposal and who has the best grasp of logical analysis, the winner in any debate of that style is usually the one who expresses the best showmanship.

Sigma_Orionis
2005-Dec-19, 08:17 PM
I also liked how Bart kept trying to draw a comparison between himself and Copurnacus (SP?). How C. was condemned for his belief that the Earth was not the center of the Univ. All the while Bart is the condemning anyone who believes the PROOF we went to the moon.

I wish I was better at the words. Sorry, the ideas sound great in my head but just don't make it to the keys.


He didn't even get that one right, Copernicus was not condemmned because he only published his model near the end of his life, Galileo was the one that took the brunt of it....


Editted to add: sorry to bring it up again, thats what I get for not reading till the end of the theread..... :D