PDA

View Full Version : Wondering if I can set up a one on one debate with Jay on the Apollo hoax question.



Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 03:25 AM
I don't know if you remeber me or not, but I went around with some of you from this forum at the GLP forum on the subject of the Apollo saga. Apparently you have a low opinion of me around here, so I am here to attempt to vindicate myself and to present an alternate view, if that will be allowed here.
The forum rules there at GLP favored anarchy, making a one on one debate impossible. While disrespectful words were spoken from both sides, I am willing to forget the personal side of this and let by gones be just that. This subject is too important to remain unchallenged by a dynamic intellect capable of understanding the complex interactions involved, and I am convinced many of the posters on the above mentioned forum responding to my replies fall into this catagory.
I personally would like to engage Jay alone, because I believe otherwise I will be totally outnumbered and out manuevered on this forum, making a fair debate impossible.
I have new questions, and answers to old ones that were never adequately answered.
I know what the forum rules here are, and I agree to comply with them so long as we understand rules are meant to apply to everyone.

SO how 'bout it Jay? Do you accept my challenge to a one on one debate?

My intention is to present each arguement or point individually, one at a time so a conclusion on each can be reached in the readers' mind, and perhaps in the minds of the participants. Jay would be required to do the same in this format, that is he would present an arguement in Apollos' favor that I must attempt to respond to. When one of us agrees they've lost the particular point, we move on. I do not intend to win every arguement, but I DO intend to win a good percentage of them. I do not intend for Jay to admit what I have to say disproves the Apollo story, nor do I expect him to. Whether he or I wins this debate will be self evident.... IMHO if he refuses claiming some past offense against him on my part, I think we can all assume he feels inadequate to the task. I have all of those old posts archived, and I can assure you it was by no means a one sided personal attack launched by myself against Jay, but in fact members of BAD ASTRONOMY initiated the personal attacks

Svector
2007-Aug-01, 03:59 AM
I personally would like to engage Jay alone, because I believe otherwise I will be totally outnumbered and out manuevered on this forum, making a fair debate impossible.

I'd just like to say that it sounds like a great idea, and I hope Jay agrees. As long as both parties adhere to forum rules and avoid ad-hominem attacks, I for one would look forward to such an exchange. You seem like a reasonable person, so it doesn't seem likely that the aforementioned will be a problem.

Your proposal to tackle each separate topic until resolution is reached, is in step with the preferred rules of engagement here. I must also admit, it's quite a welcome surprise to hear that kind of proposal coming from someone on the "other side" if you will, since HBs' typical strategy is to defend a position only until it's no longer defensible, at which point they rapidly change horses and hope no one notices. :lol:

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Aug-01, 04:02 AM
It could be interesting or just like every other thread on the subject.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-01, 04:09 AM
I personally would like to engage Jay alone, because I believe otherwise I will be totally outnumbered and out manuevered on this forum, making a fair debate impossible.

Fair debate is ensured by the rules of the board. They apply equally to all parties. Other conspiracy theorists who post here don't seem to have a problem making headway.

SO how 'bout it Jay? Do you accept my challenge to a one on one debate?

No, I don't. I will happily discuss any points you may wish to raise here. But I absolutely do not consent to exclude from a debate those who have a contribution to make, on either side of it. This is a forum for public debate, not for showboating or deck-stacking.

I am pleased that you are willing to submit to the admittedly strict rules of this forum. I think you'll find they'll safeguard your interests sufficiently. As for anything that might have passed at GLP, I'm willing to start with a clean slate.

IMHO if he refuses claiming some past offense against him on my part, I think we can all assume he feels inadequate to the task.

I decline, but not for that reason. I decline because the question of the authenticity of Apollo is a matter of ideas and facts, not a matter of individual charisma or skill. The intellectual process respects information and arguments from all sources. You seem to see this as a battle to be faced and fought rather than a question to be decided. It is that attitude to which I object.

Gillianren
2007-Aug-01, 04:30 AM
Also, it's not as though Jay's the only one in possession of facts--or, indeed, as though Jay is in possession of all the facts, though he does have quite a lot of them. If I were watching a debate between fact (Apollo is real) and fantasy (Apollo was hoaxed), and I knew a piece of information that was relevant but the person, whomever it happened to be, debating fact didn't have, I would want to give that person the information, because Jay's right and it should be more about fact than personality.

hhEb09'1
2007-Aug-01, 04:48 AM
I know what the forum rules here are, and I agree to comply with them so long as we understand rules are meant to apply to everyone.The forum rules don't support one on one debate
IMHO if he refuses claiming some past offense against him on my part, I think we can all assume he feels inadequate to the task.

I decline, but not for that reason.
IW 0, Jay 1

OK, IW, whatcha got for round two! :)

Count Zero
2007-Aug-01, 05:03 AM
You guys could go back & forth using PMs (with a moderator CC'ed), and then the moderator could post the dialogue when you both (or the mod) agree that the dialogue is concluded. I would be willing to wait.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-01, 05:06 AM
My intention is to present each arguement or point individually, one at a time so a conclusion on each can be reached in the readers' mind, and perhaps in the minds of the participants.

That degree of organization would be most uncommon and most welcome. As you may be aware, a major complaint against most conspiracy theorists is their inability to focus on one point. See the What happened on the Moon? thread for probably the worst example. If you are willing to commit to a single point until some manner of closure is reached, I think you'll find there are many here who will follow you in that commitment. I would certainly urge them to.

There are, of course, a few caveats to that approach.

First, an inductive proof is not concluded upon a point here and there, or even upon the several points considered individually. An inductive argument considers the totality of available evidence and arrives at a parsimonious conclusion that best explains that totality. So while distraction and evasion are clearly out of bounds, the nature of parsimony changes radically if the argument is considered a severable set of individual points.

Second, and subsidiary to the first, the typical alternative theory to explain Apollo evidence presents itself as an incomplete, disjoint, and often contradictory set of ad hoc scenarios that seem reasonable in the small, but fail in the large. So while it's laudable to want to stick to some point, most of the regulars here are attuned to the problems of the ad hoc approach and may press the larger question at regular intervals.

Put simply: even with your well-intended discipline, you'll still have to convince everyone that you have a coherent alternative to the customary theory, not just a list of random "inconsistencies" or "anomalies." I phrase those concerns as caveats rather than outright objections because I obviously have no way to to know exactly what you intend to say.

Jay would be required to do the same in this format, that is he would present an arguement in Apollos' favor that I must attempt to respond to.

That would occur naturally, I think. Which is to say: point, counterpoint, rebuttal, and rejoinder tend to occur without being formally bidden.

But the touchy hidden presumption is that the burden of proof would lie somewhere in the middle. I'm not sure if that's what you mean to say, but unfortunately it doesn't lie there. When you consider historical authenticity, the presumption has to be on authenticity and an accusation of fakery bears the overall burden of proof. There are clear epistemological reasons for this, but I won't bog down in them just yet.

Now before you despair, there are a lot of common hoax arguments for which we typically offer affirmative responses, which individually carry a small burden of proof. It's not as if we're trying to stack the deck. But any question of authenticity does not start off in the middle. It starts off on the side of authenticity.

Again, the folks here are highly-attuned -- perhaps even hypersensitive -- to inappropriate shifts in burden of proof. So again here you'll have to convince folks that you are willing to toe an appropriate line.

Count Zero
2007-Aug-01, 05:22 AM
First, an inductive proof is not concluded upon a point here and there, or even upon the several points considered individually. An inductive argument considers the totality of available evidence and arrives at a parsimonious conclusion that best explains that totality. So while distraction and evasion are clearly out of bounds, the nature of parsimony changes radically if the argument is considered a severable set of individual points.

I did not understand that at all.

Re: The burden of proof and presumption of authenticity: I like to use the example of a traffic cop: The cop pulls you over and asks to see your driver's licence. You hand it to him, but he says it could be fake. You show him every other ID you have, and he says that they may be fake. You reproduce your signature and compare it to the IDs and he accuses you of being a talented forger. In court, you produce friends and family to vouch for your identity, and the cop says they are either liars or paid shills. He demands that you provide real incontrovertable evidence of your identity. Does this sound ridiculous? It is. The burden of proof is not on the accused to prove authenticity, it is on the accuser to prove either that the evidence false, and/or that another answer (i.e. in this example, that you are actually someone else) is more likely than what the evidence proposes.

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-01, 05:32 AM
I personally would like to engage Jay alone, because I believe otherwise I will be totally outnumbered and out manuevered on this forum, making a fair debate impossible.


My intention is to present each arguement or point individually, one at a time so a conclusion on each can be reached in the readers' mind, and perhaps in the minds of the participants.

That degree of organization would be most uncommon and most welcome. As you may be aware, a major complaint against most conspiracy theorists is their inability to focus on one point. See the What happened on the Moon? thread for probably the worst example. If you are willing to commit to a single point until some manner of closure is reached, I think you'll find there are many here who will follow you in that commitment. I would certainly urge them to.


Yes, this would be much appreciated, and would help with the "outnumbering" issue that seems to bother IDW. Usually, we either have folks that change the subject rather than answering questions or who attempt to support unlikely claims with other unlikely claims. Given that there are often many errors of evidence and logic in each of these claims, a thread tends to balloon with corrections, or requests for evidence for those claims. So limiting the number of claims, with careful consideration of evidence and logic, would lead to a much better discussion.

hhEb09'1
2007-Aug-01, 05:39 AM
So limiting the number of claims, with careful consideration of evidence and logic, would lead to a much better discussion.I'm up for that! What's claim number two, IDW?

Svector
2007-Aug-01, 05:40 AM
I decline, but not for that reason.

Bummer.

It's such a rarity to find a hoax believer who is actually civil, reasonable, and willing to participate in debate while following the rules of engagement. It seems a shame to dismiss him/her.

Of course, requesting no outside participation in an open forum is an improper request by IW, but I wonder if maybe he'd be willing to compromise a bit and present his arguments anyway, knowing that board rules don't permit abusive behavior, and as such he needn't worry about a "lynch mob" style attack.

In fairness to him, I believe he has a semi-valid concern in that regard, as board rules do demand that all questions be answered in a prompt and courteous fashion. As such, he may feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume of potential queries to which he'd be required to respond (in keeping with regulations), and decide that a group endeavor simply isn't worth the effort. As long as I've been here, every HB I've seen come and go has done so with guns blazing, full of invective, and unwilling to discuss arguments rationally, so if he actually is as sincere and reasonable as his post suggests, it would be a pity to scare him away.

IW: If board members here engage you civilly and agree to rationally discuss specific topics in a linear manner until resolution is reached, would you agree to participate? If you conduct yourself in a polite and civilized manner, I doubt very much you'll feel "ganged up on", as you expressed concern for.

What say you?

hhEb09'1
2007-Aug-01, 05:44 AM
IW: If board members here engage you civilly and agree to rationally discuss specific topics in a linear manner until resolution is reached, would you agree to participate? What do you mean by in a linear manner? Do you mean, topic two, then topic three, etc.?

JayUtah
2007-Aug-01, 05:50 AM
I did not understand that at all.

Sorry about that. It just means that if you have ten points of evidence, you want one conclusion in an inductive proof, not ten small sub-conclusions.

Induction is reasoning from specific to general. That is, the specific evidentiary points in, say, a criminal trial may add up to the general conclusion that the defendant is guilty. Or not.

I like to use the example of a traffic cop...

That's a good analogy to many conspiracy theories, but what you're describing has more to do with the burden of an affirmative rebuttal. If you present a driver's license that appears in order as satisfaction of some burden of proof (i.e., that you are permitted to drive), someone who "affirms" that it must instead be fake (i.e., and that you are really not permitted to drive) has the burden to prove that.

The reason why we have to presume authenticity is because of what can be proven. You can never prove that something is authentic; you can only prove that it hasn't yet been shown to be fake according to any detection means you know about. In order to prove in a logically rigorous way that something is authentic, you'd have to show that it not only passes the tests you know about, but that it would pass any test yet to be devised. That's impossible and open-ended. In logical terms, it's a conjunction, or the condition expressed in electronics by the AND gate. Proof of authenticity would be the logical product of passing Test 1 and Test 2 and... all the way up to Test Infinity. Can't be done, mathematically.

But you can prove with logical rigor that something is fake. In the case of the driver's license you can show that the signature doesn't match, or that the lamination is not official, or that the photograph has been replaced, or that the watermark is missing. Any one of those conditions, if discovered, proves the fake, regardless of what others may be true or of what other tests might be devised in the future. Logically it's a disjunction, or the relationship expressed electronically in the OR gate. Proof of a fake would be the failure of Test 1 or of Test 2 or of Test 3 and so on. It doesn't matter in a disjunction if the set is unbounded.

Now in practice the uncertainties of empiricism apply. In practice no one test is conclusive. But the point here is to justify placing the burden of proof, which can be studied under notion of ideal cases.

Svector
2007-Aug-01, 05:50 AM
What do you mean by in a linear manner? Do you mean, topic two, then topic three, etc.?

Essentially yes, in keeping with his original suggestion:

"My intention is to present each arguement or point individually, one at a time so a conclusion on each can be reached in the readers' mind, and perhaps in the minds of the participants."

hhEb09'1
2007-Aug-01, 05:58 AM
Essentially yes, in keeping with his original suggestion:OK, but it seems that that is in his control, rather than something that we have to agree to, then. If he presents a topic, I don't think the board rules would require him to answer questions that were off topic.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-01, 06:15 AM
It seems a shame to dismiss him/her.

To be clear: I don't decline to debate Interdimensional Warrior at all; I decline to agree that only I debate him. It's not fair to everyone else who has interest, insight, and knowledge regarding Apollo, it's not what this forum is about, and it's not what science and investigation are about.

...I wonder if maybe he'd be willing to compromise a bit and present his arguments anyway, knowing that board rules don't permit abusive behavior, and as such he needn't worry about a "lynch mob" style attack.

That is exactly what I'm counterproposing.

Which of you isn't already thinking, "If I see Jay getting into trouble I'll help him out with key information in a private message?" If that's going to happen, I'd rather it happen in public.

In fairness to him, I believe he has a semi-valid concern in that regard, as board rules do demand that all questions be answered in a prompt and courteous fashion.

I sympathize with his misgivings about what must seem to him like walking into the lion's den. Personally I think the issue of outnumbering is a red herring. In nearly a decade of formal debate over the Apollo hoax theory, I have seen the deck consistently stacked naturally in favor of conspiracy theorists simply because it's very easy to make an accusation or ask a question, but often requires considerable research and discussion on our part to provide the response. I'm not saying it's payback time, nor that I.W. will necessary make those same arguments; I'm just saying that I think the concern is probably overrated in this case.

The spirit of the "prompt and courteous response rule" is to avoid evasion. Clearly any poster who is actively answering questions ought not to be held responsible for backlog under that rule. And I would argue, if a poster is being reasonably responsive, that deluging him with new questions beyond his capacity would itself violate the anti-evasion rules.

Svector
2007-Aug-01, 06:16 AM
OK, but it seems that that is in his control, rather than something that we have to agree to, then. If he presents a topic, I don't think the board rules would require him to answer questions that were off topic.

My understanding is that he'd be required to respond only to questions about points he specifically presented. If I'm wrong about that I'm sure someone will correct me, but it seems that if everyone and their cousin participates, he may be confronted with the daunting task of addressing 20 variations of the same question, or even more questions about sub-topics relevant to the larger point, each unique in its own right.

I could also be interpreting the board rules a bit too strictly, and perhaps he'll be cut some slack in that regard if he decides to press onward.

Knowing the general distaste ABs have for HBs who constantly change subjects as a means of salvaging a lost debate, I doubt staying on topic would be a problem - at least on the AB side.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-01, 06:29 AM
...he may be confronted with the daunting task of addressing 20 variations of the same question...

Hypothetically I'd be inclined to accept an answer to any one variation.

...more questions about sub-topics relevant to the larger point...

That's when we have to put our money where are mouths are and meet him halfway on the issue of relevancy and volume.

I could also be interpreting the board rules a bit too strictly, and perhaps he'll be cut some slack in that regard if he decides to press onward.

We have carefully-chosen moderators precisely for that reason.

Svector
2007-Aug-01, 06:49 AM
...he may be confronted with the daunting task of addressing 20 variations of the same question...

Hypothetically I'd be inclined to accept an answer to any one variation.


At this point, I would too. Heck, I'd be thrilled to find one who didn't accuse me of being the anti-Christ. :dance:


That's when we have to put our money where are mouths are and meet him halfway on the issue of relevancy and volume.

I'm with you on that one. For what it's worth, I'd be content to just sit here with my popcorn and observe, for fear I'd say something to scare him away.

Finding an HB who is courteous, concise, and stays on-topic? Someone call an exobiologist before this specimen returns to the home planet.

:)

Nicolas
2007-Aug-01, 07:30 AM
well then....*START!*

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-01, 07:36 AM
Yes. IDW, let's see one argument, and let's discuss that argument. I do hope, however, that it isn't one that has been seen and debunked many times.

Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 07:56 AM
Let's face it guys, one on one is fair and 30 against one IS NOT A FAIR DEBATE.
Jay can colaborate with anyone he wants, and get information from any of you or any source he wishes, and I can do the same. The reason fro keeping it one on one would be simply to avoid the bickering, namecalling and hard feelings all around. If Jay can engage an idiot like Sibel one on one on the discovery channel, he should be able do the same with me on his own forum. I am not here to start trouble or instigate a brawl, thats why I want a one on one. Jay represents the Apollo program, he should be able to answer any questions I raise.
That's simply not a valid excuse.

Nicolas
2007-Aug-01, 08:04 AM
the number of participants does not matter if the attention is firmly on facts rather than personalia. If something is true when said to 1 person, it is true when said to 30 persons. If something one person says is false, it's still false when 30 persons say so.

The namecalling etc should be kept out by the board rules.

btw this forum is not Jay's own forum, at all. He's just a member.

Jay does not represent the Apollo program, he just knows a lot about it. As do several others here.

With the board rules overhere, it should be possible to have a civil, factual debate if we stick to subjects. At least let's give it a try.

Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 08:14 AM
the number of participants does not matter if the attention is firmly on facts rather than personalia. If something is true when said to 1 person, it is true when said to 30 persons. If something one person says is false, it's still false when 30 persons say so.

The namecalling etc should be kept out by the board rules.

btw this forum is not Jay's own forum, at all. He's just a member.

Jay does not represent the Apollo program, he just knows a lot about it. As do several others here.

With the board rules overhere, it should be possible to have a civil, factual debate if we stick to subjects. At least let's give it a try.

I understand this is not Jays forum, perhaps that wasnt the right choice of words, but it is friendly territory to him, to be more precise, and unfriendly territory for myself.

In that respect it IS his forum. Jay DOES represent the Apollo program in my estimation, because he argues in favor of its validity against criticism or denial. I have nothing against him personally, that is a misconception on your part. When I attacked him, I was responding to attacks on myself. Self defense, you might call it.
He should be able to make light work of me here, with all the advantages at his disposal. I am after all just a guy in Texas who has doubts about the valdity of the official story surrounding the Apollo saga. I don't deny something happened, I just don't agree that what is claimed happened did!

Nicolas
2007-Aug-01, 08:18 AM
While the ideas on apollo held by most people on this board are different from yours, you are allowed to have and defend them. In fact, that's the reason this part of the board exists. You're in a minority, agreed, but the rules should enforce things staying friendly, and facts are unrelated to how many people tell them or deny them.

I never said nor thought you had anything against Jay personally?

Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 08:23 AM
While the ideas on apollo held by most people on this board are different from yours, you are allowed to have and defend them. In fact, that's the reason this part of the board exists. You're in a minority, agreed, but the rules should enforce things staying friendly, and facts are unrelated to how many people tell them or deny them.

I never said nor thought you had anything against Jay personally?

I wasn't refering to you, but others on this board have went as far as to suggest I may be a psychotic stalker and a physical danger to him. That is part of the reason I will not engage in such an unbalanced debate.

Jason Thompson
2007-Aug-01, 08:30 AM
Bottom line, IDW: This is a public forum, and Jay is not the sole representative of those of us who believe Apollo to be genuine. He is not our nominated representative. We do not rally behind him. Quite simply, you may not dismiss us in favour of him as that is not fair on him or us. Hypothetically, if you asked a question that Jay could not answer but one of us could, would you claim a victory even though the question itself may be answerable?

Svector
2007-Aug-01, 08:31 AM
The reason fro keeping it one on one would be simply to avoid the bickering, namecalling and hard feelings all around.


Having participated here for a while now, I think I can say with some certainty that if you treat members here with respect and courtesy, you won't encounter any bickering or namecalling. If you do, the moderators will deal with those users appropriately. They'll also hold you to the same level of decorum.


Jay represents the Apollo program, he should be able to answer any questions I raise.

And I'm sure he will, as Jay has always made a point of making himself available to critics. If you feel outnumbered, you're free to invite your supporters here. As long as they abide by the rules, they'd be welcome too.

Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 08:37 AM
It seems a shame to dismiss him/her.

To be clear: I don't decline to debate Interdimensional Warrior at all; I decline to agree that only I debate him. It's not fair to everyone else who has interest, insight, and knowledge regarding Apollo, it's not what this forum is about, and it's not what science and investigation are about.

...I wonder if maybe he'd be willing to compromise a bit and present his arguments anyway, knowing that board rules don't permit abusive behavior, and as such he needn't worry about a "lynch mob" style attack.

That is exactly what I'm counterproposing.

Which of you isn't already thinking, "If I see Jay getting into trouble I'll help him out with key information in a private message?" If that's going to happen, I'd rather it happen in public.

In fairness to him, I believe he has a semi-valid concern in that regard, as board rules do demand that all questions be answered in a prompt and courteous fashion.

I sympathize with his misgivings about what must seem to him like walking into the lion's den. Personally I think the issue of outnumbering is a red herring. In nearly a decade of formal debate over the Apollo hoax theory, I have seen the deck consistently stacked naturally in favor of conspiracy theorists simply because it's very easy to make an accusation or ask a question, but often requires considerable research and discussion on our part to provide the response. I'm not saying it's payback time, nor that I.W. will necessary make those same arguments; I'm just saying that I think the concern is probably overrated in this case.

The spirit of the "prompt and courteous response rule" is to avoid evasion. Clearly any poster who is actively answering questions ought not to be held responsible for backlog under that rule. And I would argue, if a poster is being reasonably responsive, that deluging him with new questions beyond his capacity would itself violate the anti-evasion rules.

In science there are two types of information, facts and suppositions. The Apollo story is a supposition. It has never been adequately proved.

Could the A-13 astronauts have survived their periless journey given thier obstacles? The answer is YES! Could they have done it the way we were told they did? Well, I have serious doubts.

If I make a statement and get twenty confrontational reponses that are either provocative or repetitive, do I have a need to answer them all? How can I adequately represent my position?

I cannot see the reason for your refusal, unless you are worried that I might intellectually overpower you, which I seriously doubt.

Jason Thompson
2007-Aug-01, 08:38 AM
In addition, I am frankly tired of having my contributions dismissed, ignored or passed over just because Jay is also answering the questions. I've seen it from at least half a dozen people, all of whom came on here singling Jay out for argument and paying the rest of us not the slightest attention. Over on the Apollohoax boards one new guy even turned up hurling abuse at Jay in the middle of a period of several months during which Jay was not around on those boards.

Now I certainly don't bear any malice against Jay for the attention he draws from the hoax believer crowd, but I do object to it from them on a public forum. If you want to debate Jay in private do it via e-mail or private messaging. I'm tired of people who disagree with us picking him as our representative in debates.

Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 08:42 AM
Bottom line, IDW: This is a public forum, and Jay is not the sole representative of those of us who believe Apollo to be genuine. He is not our nominated representative. We do not rally behind him. Quite simply, you may not dismiss us in favour of him as that is not fair on him or us. Hypothetically, if you asked a question that Jay could not answer but one of us could, would you claim a victory even though the question itself may be answerable?

Jason, he could communicate with any one of you any way he likes. The debate I envision is the ONLY fair way to go about it. You have one representative to represent your views, and I have one, myself. My opionons and questions are NOT represented by mainstream MHB's. As far as who you choose to debate me, it doesnt neccessarilly have to be Jay, but he is THE most respected and recognized expert on the subject.

Jason Thompson
2007-Aug-01, 08:42 AM
If I make a statement and get twenty confrontational reponses that are either provocative or repetitive, do I have a need to answer them all? How can I adequately represent my position?

Facts don't care how many people disagree with them. If you have facts on your side then you can present them and be done with it.


I cannot see the reason for your refusal, unless you are worried that I might intellectually overpower you, which I seriously doubt.

Jay's reason has been given. Our reasons for objecting have been given. We will debate with you in accordance with the forum rules.

Jason Thompson
2007-Aug-01, 08:44 AM
Jason, he could communicate with any one of you any way he likes.

And he has already made clear that he likes that to be on the public forum.

Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 08:52 AM
We all know that television programs are a powerful medium for engineering society and forming opinions. Jay got his chance to present his evidence and his arguements, but unfortunately no one asked him the right questions, either. All I want is the same chance he gave Sibel or whatever his name is on the television. Unless Sibel is simply REALLY on your side. After all, he does present weak arguements repeatedly. Seems like to me he might be lobbing slow easy ones right over the plate so Jay can hit them out.
Not to be confrontational, but let's see if he can get a hit off of me!
It should be easy. Could it be possible Jay would be afraid to answer my questions alone?
Why?

Nicolas
2007-Aug-01, 08:54 AM
If you've got unique new ideas and arguments, I would say the more reviewing it gets the better, in a factual debate of course.

To answer your question:


If I make a statement and get twenty confrontational reponses that are either provocative or repetitive, do I have a need to answer them all? How can I adequately represent my position?

You represent your position by making a statement and backing it up, and then by answering questions and remarks about it (where "I don't know" is a valid answer too btw). If multiple people have roughly the same question or remark about it, I'd say it is sufficient to give an answer that deals with the essence of them all. No need to give 20 times the same answer to different people with the same question :). If you get a load of different questions at the same time, respond to them one by one such that we see you're dealing with them, and optionally say you don't have time to reply to all of them at once.

It's not our goal -at least not mine- to drown you in questions and ban you because you weren't able to answer them all on the spot. What we expect is the same thing as you: one topic at a time until we're done with it, respond to questions and remarks, and in a reasonable way (which means that 20 nearly identical questions can be answered with one clear answer instead of 20).

Nicolas
2007-Aug-01, 08:55 AM
We all know that television programs are a powerful medium for engineering society and forming opinions. Jay got his chance to present his evidence and his arguements, but unfortunately no one asked him the right questions, either. All I want is the same chance he gave Sibel or whatever his name is on the television. Unless Sibel is simply REALLY on your side. After all, he does present weak arguements repeatedly. Seems like to me he might be lobbing slow easy ones right over the plate so Jay can hit them out.
Not to be confrontational, but let's see if he can get a hit off of me!
It should be easy. Could it be possible Jay would be afraid to answer my questions alone?
Why?

You ask the wrong questions now. If you want a one on one debate with Jay, you shouldn't ask it on a public forum for reasons given.

Plus it can hurt the facts when you single out Jay, as said for example if he doesn't know the answer but somebody else does. Jay not knowing something does not change the facts, always remember that. Jay claiming something doesn't make it a fact, also remember that. The larger the pool of critical people debating something, the higher the chances of staying closer to the facts, as people can correct each other on mistakes. Jay is not free of mistakes.

So if you're here to test your ideas and arguments against the facts, public debate would be best. If you're trying to use your arguments just to test Jay, apparently the truth about apollo is not of paramount interest to you.

Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 08:59 AM
Well Nicholas, Jason, Jay, and everyone else here , I've got a meeting to go to tommorow morning and it's 4 am already, so I have to check out for the night, but I'll be back if I'm not banned by then. I appreciate the civil nature of the preceedings thus far, it is a refreshing change from the usual.

Nicolas
2007-Aug-01, 09:01 AM
Why on earth would you be banned for what you've said here?

Svector
2007-Aug-01, 09:01 AM
All I want is the same chance he gave Sibel or whatever his name is on the television. Unless Sibel is simply REALLY on your side. After all, he does present weak arguements repeatedly. Seems like to me he might be lobbing slow easy ones right over the plate so Jay can hit them out.
Not to be confrontational, but let's see if he can get a hit off of me!
It should be easy. Could it be possible Jay would be afraid to answer my questions alone?
Why?

Why not introduce an argument to support your position, and see how it goes? We'll call it a trial run. :lol:

If the response isn't to your liking, you're always free to leave, or call in reinforcements. I can personally promise I won't deride or demean you in any way, and I'm sure you'll receive similar treatment from others.

Tell us what's on your mind.

Svector
2007-Aug-01, 09:06 AM
Why on earth would you be banned for what you've said here?

LOL. I think he really has a misconception about how participants with opposing views are treated here and what's expected of them. As far as I know, no one has ever been banned simply because of their point of view. IW should realize that.

Nicolas
2007-Aug-01, 09:08 AM
oops, double post.

Nicolas
2007-Aug-01, 09:09 AM
Even more, this week 2 members with a firm hoax point of view have not been banned, even though they never ever answered a direct question or backed up a claim, which they should according to the rules.

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-01, 09:09 AM
Jason, he could communicate with any one of you any way he likes.


Aside from the public discussion, why would he?



The debate I envision is the ONLY fair way to go about it. You have one representative to represent your views, and I have one, myself.


Very good. There is one representative for my views: Me. There is one representative for Jay's views: Jay. And so on for other forum members. While I greatly respect Jay's knowledge on Apollo, and often have come to similar conclusions based on the Apollo evidence, do not assume that he speaks for me. That is why this is a discussion forum.

Jason Thompson
2007-Aug-01, 09:12 AM
Could it be possible Jay would be afraid to answer my questions alone?
Why?

No, it could not be possible. Jay does not ask for help in debates. We do not rally round to support him and provide a crutch for his arguments. We agree with him much of the time, but that is not the same thing.

What is distinctly possible, and has been given as a very valid reason, is that Jay objects to doing it one on one on a public forum, where neither you nor he has the right to expect the rest of us to keep silent. Had you singled me out I would have objected for the same reason. If you debate here you debate in public and anyone may chime in at any time. We don't expect personal responses to every post. You'll probaby find that most replies to your posts ask essentially the same things, so one answer can address them all.

Jeff Root
2007-Aug-01, 09:45 AM
I think that a one-on-one debate, in order to avoid a bloated and
chaotic discussion, would be appropriate on some forum or web page
or blog which has software designed for that task.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

hhEb09'1
2007-Aug-01, 10:08 AM
I think that a one-on-one debate, in order to avoid a bloated and
chaotic discussion, would be appropriate on some forum or web page
or blog which has software designed for that task.Even better, let's really cut the fat, and present the argument as a monologue :)

Come to think of it, that's the way it should be. Present the case in a post, and let's see how it fares. If it isn't developed enough to print in a post, then it's not worth much.
Could it be possible Jay would be afraid to answer my questions alone?Quit stalling :)

I would like to hear your argument.

Mellow
2007-Aug-01, 10:39 AM
I grow impatient, but not in a nasty way....

ineluki
2007-Aug-01, 11:23 AM
If I make a statement and get twenty confrontational reponses that are either provocative or repetitive, do I have a need to answer them all? How can I adequately represent my position?

If the responses are only provocative, report them to the mods.
If they are repetitive, address the point once.

If you are really confident in your arguments, why are you so worried?

Z28Jerry
2007-Aug-01, 12:26 PM
Well Nicholas, Jason, Jay, and everyone else here , I've got a meeting to go to tommorow morning and it's 4 am already, so I have to check out for the night, but I'll be back if I'm not banned by then. I appreciate the civil nature of the preceedings thus far, it is a refreshing change from the usual.

*insert drama chipmunk here....

This should be a very simple debate, if IW is so sure his evidence is conclusive and is not the same misrepresentations that have been proved beyond reasonable doubt to be wrong, then he should not be so guarded in presenting his "home run" hoaxer facts.

I can assure you, IW, here there will be an intelligent debate. If your facts don't hold up though, you would have to concede, not just run off to your room and decry your continued belief in the moon hoax based on blind faith or distrust of the "man".

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-01, 01:08 PM
The debate I envision is the ONLY fair way to go about it.

This board is not Burger King...you don't get to have it your way.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-01, 01:14 PM
The Apollo story is a supposition. It has never been adequately proved.

Standards of evidence are a good place to begin. What do you mean by "adequately proved?" Or if you prefer, can you give an example of a historical occurrence of the same magnitude as Apollo that you believe has been adequately proved in your opinion and describe what about its proof makes it adequate?

How can I adequately represent my position?

The same way everyone else in your position or mine does. The same way you are doing now in arguing for favorable ground rules.

I cannot see the reason for your refusal, unless you are worried that I might intellectually overpower you, which I seriously doubt.

This is the second or third time you have raised that spectre. It's becoming apparent that your ground rules are aimed more at creating a debating contest than in having your unique ideas tested by skeptical but polite critics. This is not a game show. The aim at BAUT is not to see who is the best debater, but which ideas can best stand the harsh light of scrutiny, wherever the ideas or scrutiny come from.

You've cited the fear of being overrun as the reasons behind your proposed special rules. We have existing ground rules at this forum that are calculated to address that fear. They have been demonstrated to work for the other controversial discussions that occur here every day. So I have faith they will continue to work in your case. The moderators have also made special arrangements in the past (e.g., threads with posting restrictions) upon request in order to allow a conspiracy theorist to get his point across unmolested. Unless that fear isn't the real reason behind your proposed rules, I say you should be well taken care of under the current regime.

On a softer note: you have asked us to take your claim at face value that you will fight fair. Notice all these people welcoming that sentiment. We're asking you to meet us halfway and take at face value our claim that we will fight fair.

Jim
2007-Aug-01, 01:15 PM
Interdimensional Warrior, welcome to the BAUT! If you haven't already, please familiarize yourself with the Rules for Posting (http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/32864-rules-posting-board.html).

As has been pointed out, this is a public forum. One-on-one debate is not the norm here and - unless Fraser and Phil decide to change the rules - will not be enforced. If you wish to discuss the Apollo program, you are more than welcome to present your thoughts for discussion, but you cannot insist on a limited response. If Members decide on their own to refrain from entering the discussion, that is their decision.

If you present a Conspiracy Theory in this forum, you are required to answer pertinent, direct questions in a timely fashion. "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. If the question is answered by you and then repeated, you can refer to your previous answer. If you feel at anytime that a question, response, or attitude is out of line or in violation of the Rules, you can/should report the post by clicking the little red triangle in the post's upper right corner. You can also PM any Mod to report abusive behaviour.

You will not be banned for your views. You will risk some form af administrative action if you violate the Rules.

I think I speak for most Members when I say, we look forward to your participation in the BAUT.

hhEb09'1
2007-Aug-01, 01:18 PM
I think I speak for most Members when I say, we look forward to your participation in the BAUT.Jim speaks for me, except for the purple

JayUtah
2007-Aug-01, 01:36 PM
Jay does not ask for help in debates.

As a matter of fact I do. A good expert knows the strengths of the other experts and knows to rely on their contribution instead of his own lesser attempt on some particular point. Kiwi, for example, knows more about photography than I. I respect his corrections and augmentations. Bob B. is more facile with orbital mechanics. Several people are quickly able to provide links to online versions of documents that I have only in print. I do rely upon people.

Does that mean I would be afraid to debate alone? No, of course not. A good expert also knows when to say, "I don't know that answer," and then to let the chips fall where they may. The issue is whether or not that serves the truth. If the purpose of this exercise is to test ideas, then one person's inability to test it meaningfully does not vindicate the idea. The idea may still be as poor as ever. The strength of an idea is measured by whether it passes all criticism, not one criticism.

That is the basis of my objection: the meaingful testing of ideas and the singling out of one person to perform that test are incompatible.

sts60
2007-Aug-01, 01:47 PM
Jim speaks for me, except for the purple
:D Same here.

Tell you what, IDW, I for one will voluntarily sit on my hands in this thread, unless after a few hours since one of your posts I see some point which I believe has been overlooked or inadequately answered.

I won't ask others to do the same, but I would ask everyone else to read carefully and make sure they're up-to-date on the posts before making a reply, in order to avoid large numbers of posts replying to the same question. The best outcome of this, in my opinion, would be a few pertinent replies to each of your claims. In many cases, they would come from someone other than Jay, but since this is about scientific, technical, and historical facts, rather than about debating style or personalities, that wouldn't be a problem, and it would neatly take care of your concern about being buried by replies.

And, in general, I would caution all participants to be extra-polite and avoid snarky remarks, questioning someone else's attitudes, and snipping about rules, grammar, etc.

I'll consider the debate begun with this exchange:

IDW: The Apollo story is a supposition. It has never been adequately proved.

JayUtah: Standards of evidence are a good place to begin. What do you mean by "adequately proved?" Or if you prefer, can you give an example of a historical occurrence of the same magnitude as Apollo that you believe has been adequately proved in your opinion and describe what about its proof makes it adequate?

How about it, IDW?

(Returns to the bleachers and reaches for the popcorn)

JayUtah
2007-Aug-01, 01:47 PM
I appreciate the civil nature of the preceedings thus far, it is a refreshing change from the usual.

Actually here it is the usual. That's why I urged you long ago to present your case here rather than at GLP, where I agree the anarchy did not contribute to a meaningful discussion. Remaining polite and focused is not only the rule here, but a point of pride.

Fazor
2007-Aug-01, 02:03 PM
Wow, the things a lone BAUTer can miss when he's asleep for the night! I think most of us would love a new, civil Apollo discussion. They do seem so rare.

I don't understand the "How can I answer 20 different questions regarding my stance". Remember, if someone asks a question that's beyond your knowlege, it's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know". My two fields of official training are Law Enforcement and Computer Animation. I could write books on both. But I would never even pretend to know everything about either field. We wouldn't expect any different from anyone else (although people seem to expect it of Jay...I think it's the powdered wig that does it).

Anyway, welcome to the boards.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-01, 02:11 PM
We all know that television programs are a powerful medium for engineering society and forming opinions. Jay got his chance to present his evidence and his arguements...

As did Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene, if you're referring to the program produced by Zig Zag Productions for Discovery Canada and U.K. Channel 4. (It goes by different names in different markets.)

...but unfortunately no one asked him the right questions, either.

I agree. When you say I "got [my] chance" to present my evidence and arguments, that implies I was in creative control of the experience. I was not. The production team apparently already had in mind what ground they wanted me to cover. I was asked questions by the director, which I answered. I was asked to suggest and to perform experiments to illustrate various points which I had previously made on my web site.

A number of experiments that I performed did not make the final cut. What you see is a subset of what I supplied at their request.

Keep in mind that I saw the specific claims made by Kaysing and Rene at the same time the rest of the world did: when they were broadcast. At the time my segment was filmed, Kaysing had not yet been interviewed. Rene had been interviewed, but the crew elected not to reveal any details of his claims to me or ask me to address them. I could easily have discussed his glove and leaf-blower claims if I had known about them.

All I want is the same chance he gave Sibel or whatever his name is on the television.

You're probably thinking of either Bill Kaysing or Ralph Rene, both of whom appeared on camera. I had absolutely no control over what they said, what they were asked, or how their remarks were edited and presented. In fact, I had no knowledge of it.

I was told that Bart Sibrel had been invited to participate, but that a suitable agreement could not be reached on the conditions of his appearance. I was also told that David Percy and Mary Bennett had been invited to contribute, but declined.

I am generally pleased with the outcome of that program, and I will be happy to discuss anything related to its production. However, one point I wish to make clearly is that I was not in the least in control of how that program was put together. It is not "my" program.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-01, 02:31 PM
In addition, I am frankly tired of having my contributions dismissed, ignored or passed over just because Jay is also answering the questions.

As am I. I have said so on a number of occasions. I am tired of others' contributions being attributed wrongly and unfairly to me. I am tired of others' valid lines of reasoning being brushed aside. I am not the personification of the Moon hoax debate. I am not the spokesman for all who disbelieve conspiracy theories.

One of the reasons debates on controversial subjects turn nasty is that the litigants disagree on the fundamental approach. Point and counterpoint pass like ships in the night not because they're ill-argued but because they derive from incompatible contexts. The fundamental difference of approach that I have often observed, and which I see emerging now, is the notion that having stumped one designated expert amounts to having proved one's point (or at least to having tested it). That's a straw-man approach. It's not compatible with the stated goal of subjecting an idea to a meaningful test of its strength.

If you want to debate Jay in private do it via e-mail or private messaging.

That's not my favorite thing to do. It's purely practical: any answer I may give in private benefits only that correspondent. The whole reason I started the Clavius web site is so that I wouldn't have to give the same answers over and over again. Of course I respect that some conversations have a confidential element to them and must occur in private, but I don't debate in private things that can be debated publicly without collateral consequence.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-01, 03:13 PM
Jason, he could communicate with any one of you any way he likes.

Then I choose to communicate with them in the context of a well-mannered but otherwise unrestricted public debate. If you agree that this is and ought to be a group effort on both sides of the question, then I simply require the collaboration to be overt and transparent.

Our rules clearly restrict what can be said that is irrelevant to the point at hand. I am suspicious of any rule that restricts what relevant items can be discussed, and in what way. That can only serve to hurt the discovery of truth.

The debate I envision is the ONLY fair way to go about it.

Unfair to what? To your interests or to the truth? We have been practicing fairness here successfully for many years without the need to muzzle any who have pertinent contributions on either side.

I'll be frank: your concerns about fairness are being addressed reasonably and in good faith by all comers, but you seem fixated on the notion that the only reason I would object to a one-on-one debate is my own personal fear of defeat. You stated that preconception in your first post, and you have reiterated it subsequently. In the interest of complete openness, I'll venture my opinion that your overture skirts dangerously close to the classic false-dilemma ploy.

If I accept your offer, then you might get to pretend your ideas were meaningfully tested by having subjected them to "the expert," and any prevalence that follows from my inevitable individual shortcomings gets touted as a legitimate justification of the idea regardless of its posture against truth that some other contributor may have been able to argue. In other words, you get a straw-man vindication of your claims. As I've argued at length, I don't agree with that approach.

And if I refuse on whatever grounds, you can insinuate that I am a coward afraid to face your devastating facts and withering reason.

Your bluff -- if indeed it is a bluff -- is slowly being called. The false-dilemma ploy requires a false pretense. In this case the false pretense appears to be concerns over fairness and even numbers. Although you have received a number of assurances, examples, and arguments pertinent to even-handedness, you continue to beg the question that your set of imposed rules is the only way to ensure fairness and that I must be a coward if I don't consent to them. Your putatively reasonable pretense is giving way to the suspicion that you're trying to stack the deck.

Because the foregoing is a matter of interpretation and judgment, I am obviously willing to entertain the possibility it may be wrong. If I have mistaken your motives, now is the time to clarify them and explain your previous statements that led me to that opinion.

We have counterproposed that you begin your presentation anyway under our current rules. If those rules are thus proven to safeguard your interests, then it will be shown that your fears were unjustified and you will be on as equal a ground as you proposed to create with your special rules. If, on the other hand, it turns into the free-for-all you feared, then you will have obtained the empirical proof of your original suspicion.

In other words, you don't have anything to lose by taking us up.

Is there an ulterior motive in that proposal? Yes, there is. It is to compel you to subject your ideas to a real-world standard of proof, which requires survival against all well-formed criticism, not merely a cherry-picked subset of it. The ulterior motive is, frankly, to put your ideas' feet to the fire. Fairly, of course, but rigorously.

You have one representative to represent your views, and I have one, myself.

I do not represent anyone's views but my own. We all collectively embody a knowledge of the pertinent facts, therefore where facts are intended to predominate, the full range of them must be accepted.

AstroSmurf
2007-Aug-01, 03:24 PM
Perhaps we can simply ask the members to simply keep the noise level down? No snippy attempts at humour, non sequiturs, nitpicking spelling errors etc - it's fun, but it gets very unruly, like a committee meeting without a chairman. Perhaps a parallel thread for discussion and other fluff? All this is not only to accommodate IDW, but also to make the debate a more interesting read.

A tip to avoid answering the same question many times: Use the "advanced" reply form, and hit "preview post" before posting - below your new post, you can see any new replies to the thread that might already address the issue.

And lastly, another welcome to IDW. I must say, if you're the same person that was active on GLP a few years back, I'm pleasantly surprised by the change in tone. I hope you'll follow through with starting a debate here - I always learn something new when forced to reexamine my views.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-01, 03:42 PM
Perhaps we can simply ask the members to simply keep the noise level down?

Actually, I don't have a problem with that...I do have a problem being told not to post my opinion.


No snippy attempts at humour, non sequiturs, nitpicking spelling errors etc - it's fun, but it gets very unruly, like a committee meeting without a chairman.

Sounds like you are describing a public discussion board. :)


All this is not only to accommodate IDW...

See, that's the thing...why should we "accommodate" IDW?

As Jay posted earlier, this board has practiced fairness successfully for many years. Now a Moon hoax proponent arrives on the board and says "the way you do things here is not fair to me", and we're suddenly suppose to change how this board is run??

I don't think so...

01101001
2007-Aug-01, 03:50 PM
Any chance someone will actually claim here a conspiracy theory, and attempt to defend it, in this topic in the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum, or are y'all (including me) just gonna talk about talking about one, who would do it, how it would be done -- as would fit better in About BAUT?

Step up, please.

Swift
2007-Aug-01, 03:55 PM
All very well said R.A.F.

One other observation. When the discussion starts off seriously and politely, I think this treads pretty much stay focused on the straight and narrow. They only tend to get noisy (puns, humor, etc.) when the HBer fails to answer questions, get snappy or insulting, or just goes away. They then to wander around until they die. If IDW wants to keep us focused, then keep the debate focused.

I think there is a mistake made that this forum is a democracy. It is not; free-speach rules don't apply. It is owned by Misters BA and Fraser and we are all here under their benevolent dictatorship, governed by their moderators. If you don't like their rules, don't write to your congressman or MP, take it elsewhere.

On the flip side, it is one of the most civil, fair forums I have been around. I enjoy it a lot.

Svector
2007-Aug-01, 04:12 PM
Now a Moon hoax proponent arrives on the board and says "the way you do things here is not fair to me", and we're suddenly suppose to change how this board is run??

Then again, how often do hoax proponents show up willing to discuss individual points calmly and rationally until resolution is reached? You have to at least admit it's a tantalizing prospect to study a rare bird like this.

It may turn out to be a smokescreen, but I don't think it's asking too much for the regulars to just ease up off the accelerator a bit. At least for starters.

Daryl71
2007-Aug-01, 04:32 PM
If this board had been set up for "one on one debates," I think Phil would have called it a "combat arena" or "boxing ring" instead of a "forum." :)

hhEb09'1
2007-Aug-01, 04:43 PM
Then again, how often do hoax proponents show up willing to discuss individual points calmly and rationally until resolution is reached? My impression? A few dozen times over the years. They usually get converted.

But I could be wrong.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-01, 04:58 PM
....how often do hoax proponents show up willing to discuss individual points calmly and rationally until resolution is reached? You have to at least admit it's a tantalizing prospect to study a rare bird like this.

I'm not convinced that is IDW's purpose. We'll know by his demeanor when he returns.


...I don't think it's asking too much for the regulars to just ease up off the accelerator a bit. At least for starters.

I reserve the right to say "I told you so" when/if things go bad. :)

AtomicDog
2007-Aug-01, 05:19 PM
If this board had been set up for "one on one debates," I think Phil would have called it a "combat arena" or "boxing ring" instead of a "forum." :)

The first rule of BAUT is you don't talk about BAUT.

Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 05:23 PM
Why not introduce an argument to support your position, and see how it goes? We'll call it a trial run. :lol:


Tell us what's on your mind.

I have two main 'issues' that I feel were never properly addressed anywhere. We'll do your trial run on a seperate thread that I will post shortly.

Since I do not have nor have I ever had detailed blueprints of the Apollo spacecraft, concentrating on details that are dependant on the proper interpretation of said drawings is impossible in my opinion. It would be an excercise in futility on my part, as past experience has shown. There are basic laws of physics that can be used, however, that apply to all technology. There is also a 140gb HD full of real, solid evidence in the public domain.

Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 05:26 PM
My impression? A few dozen times over the years. They usually get converted.

But I could be wrong.

You create your own reality, sir. The only thing is, you want to drag me into yours! Be civil and you will be treated well. If you expect criticism like this to go unresponded to, ban me right now!

Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 05:30 PM
I'm not convinced that is IDW's purpose. We'll know by his demeanor when he returns.



I reserve the right to say "I told you so" when/if things go bad. :)

I appologize, I quoted the wrong individual. I tryed to delete it but it's still there.

My response above was to this individual. I do believe we create our own realities, partly by who we share them with!

Be cool. I know we all know what that means.

Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 05:33 PM
If this board had been set up for "one on one debates," I think Phil would have called it a "combat arena" or "boxing ring" instead of a "forum." :)

So you think a 'battle royal' is a better idea?
LMAO!
I've been in such debates before, and no one is watching my back here. I know how it will go, with all due respect.

Svector
2007-Aug-01, 05:34 PM
My impression? A few dozen times over the years.

Really?

Who was the last one, and did he stick to his promise?

Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 05:37 PM
My impression? A few dozen times over the years. They usually get converted.

But I could be wrong.

I am on the fence on the Apollo saga, always have been since I argued against it's truth. I feel in order to prove it one way or another to myself that it was possible, the hardest possible quesitions must be asked, and answered.
If questions remain unanswered, Apollo remains in doubt in my mind. It is as simple as that and no amount of discussion will alter that opinion.

Moose
2007-Aug-01, 05:40 PM
I've been in such debates before, and no one is watching my back here. I know how it will go, with all due respect.

And we have seen a very large number of HBers come and go through here. You claim you'll behave differently. Fine. I (as well as most of us) am willing to accept that claim on faith until you have shown otherwise, despite the nearly invariable misbehavior of those you came before you. (Many times in the past we've accepted on faith, until shown otherwise, that they would behave themselves.)

I ask only you accord us that same courtesy. This isn't GLP. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, our rules explicitly prohibit the sort of behavior you seem to fear.

Can we please get on with it?

Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 05:40 PM
Really?

Who was the last one, and did he stick to his promise?


I could be wrong and I appologize in advance if I am, butt appears to me you are attempting to instigate a fight before we ever get started by sterotyping me as a nutcase. I think if you want to be treated well, you should suggest by example, as I have. Administrators should remove this post and the one that is quoted on it . They are irrelevant to the discussion.

phunk
2007-Aug-01, 05:41 PM
So, ask the questions.

Moose
2007-Aug-01, 05:46 PM
Who was the last one, and did he stick to his promise?

I'm not hhEb09'1. (obviously), but I've seen a few myself. I can't name names, to be honest. Even at the best of times, my memory for names is poor. But no, as of yet, no HBer* I remember has made that promise and kept it.

I'm hoping IW will truly be different.

* I'm distinguishing committed HBers from genuine fence-sitters. Fence-sitters have generally been courteous.

Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 05:48 PM
So, ask the questions.

We are still in the process of working out an agreement as to how the proceedings will be carried out, but I agreed to post a trial question on a seperate thread, and I will, just to see how it goes. Give me an hour or so to compile and review.
Already we are seeing the militant mindset of some of your members, of which I am now one until you ban me or I leave.I disagree in principal with the tactics of distraction being allowed in such a scientifically and technically oriented forum. As a member I do not wish to be treated as the enemy, but a seeker of truth.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-01, 05:49 PM
So, ask the questions.

I agree...

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-01, 05:51 PM
I disagree in principal with the tactics of distraction being allowed in such a scientifically and technically oriented forum. As a member I do not wish to be treated as the enemy, but a seeker of truth.

Then quit stalling, and ask your questions...sheesh...

AtomicDog
2007-Aug-01, 05:54 PM
I could be wrong and I appologize in advance if I am, butt appears to me you are attempting to instigate a fight before we ever get started by sterotyping me as a nutcase. I think if you want to be treated well, you should suggest by example, as I have. Administrators should remove this post and the one that is quoted on it . They are irrelevant to the discussion.


Which rule was violated that would require those posts be removed?

Moose
2007-Aug-01, 05:54 PM
Already we are seeing the militant mindset of some of your members, of which I am now one until you ban me or I leave.I disagree in principal with the tactics of distraction being allowed in such a scientifically and technically oriented forum.

Perhaps with a little less drama?

Gillianren
2007-Aug-01, 05:59 PM
So let me get this straight. You're asking for a change in how we do things that has never happened before and that is probably contrary to board policy, and we're treating you unjustly?

I defer to Jay on Apollo; Jay knows more than I do about Apollo. But Jay and I have agreed on several subjects wherein Jay defers to me!

BertL
2007-Aug-01, 06:06 PM
I think the best choice you have is asking politely in the beginning of any discussion thread if people other than Jay might want to try and keep things down for a bit, with the reasons noted and stuff. You can't demand stuff like this.

Why would you want to have a one on one debate with Jay Windley specifically, anyways?

Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 06:11 PM
Which rule was violated that would require those posts be removed?

I did not claim they violated the forums tos, only that they should.

Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 06:13 PM
By the way, I have a problem posting a science question to a catagory called 'conspiracy theory' . My questions do no involve theory of any kind.
BTW,
I tryed to start another thread but it wouldn't post.

AtomicDog
2007-Aug-01, 06:16 PM
I did not claim they violated the forums tos, only that they should.

Asking that the Admins remove a post implies exactly that.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-01, 06:17 PM
I tryed to start another thread but it wouldn't post.

If you are talking about 1st Question: How was the Apollo space craft cooled ?, it did indeed post.

Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 06:18 PM
I think the best choice you have is asking politely in the beginning of any discussion thread if people other than Jay might want to try and keep things down for a bit, with the reasons noted and stuff. You can't demand stuff like this.

Why would you want to have a one on one debate with Jay Windley specifically, anyways?

I would prefer to engage Jay simply because he is the most well known of the Apollo proponents, he carries himself like an unimpeachable expert in public, and that makes him a ligitmate debator in the readers' eyes.

He is your representative on the telivision, let him be here for a bit. Just one thread , locked to everyone else.

Interdimensional Warrior
2007-Aug-01, 06:19 PM
If you are talking about 1st Question: How was the Apollo space craft cooled ?, it did indeed post.

Then I have browser problems. TFTHU

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-01, 06:25 PM
Just one thread , locked to everyone else.

Ain't gonna happen...for obvious (and already stated) reasons.

AtomicDog
2007-Aug-01, 06:25 PM
Oh, and to keep my comments out of IW's thread, it seems to me that asking an Apollo-related question while demanding that the answerer use no knowledge of Apollo in formulating his reply is trying to stack the deck.

Moose
2007-Aug-01, 06:34 PM
Oh, and to keep my comments out of IW's thread, it seems to me that asking an Apollo-related question while demanding that the answerer use no knowledge of Apollo in formulating his reply is trying to stack the deck.

Echoed. IW, if you want to argue Apollo didn't happen, you need to make a claim (with evidence) showing Apollo didn't happen. And you'll need to accept that such a discussion necessarily requires details and specifics.

If you're looking for help understanding physics, the CT forum really isn't the place for that sort of discussion.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-01, 06:47 PM
Then again, how often do hoax proponents show up willing to discuss individual points calmly and rationally until resolution is reached?

Almost never. But in the larger sense, how many hoax proponents show up in some form of sheep's clothing? Almost all of them. How many have started out, "I just have a few questions," and then turn out to be hard-core ideologues who disregard fact? How many attempt to prevail in a debate before it even starts by manipulating ground rules, approaches, and standards of proof in their favor?

IDW's proposal might be every bit as legitimate as it sounds. I'm quite willing to be labeled paranoid rather than dishonest, which is why I've put my suspicions on my sleeve along with my reasons for them, and allowed them to be discussed openly rather let people wonder whether or not I harbor them. If the proposal is not a smoke screen, then I presume IDW will want to dispel the observations that make it seem to be. Time will tell.

You have to at least admit it's a tantalizing prospect to study a rare bird like this.

Tantalizing enough to warrant taking the idea very seriously. But perhaps not tantalizing enough to warrant compromising our core principles.

Here we have a conspiracy theorist offering to submit to a high standard of debate. That's almost unheard-of. But it comes with strings attached: the appointment of a single spokesman. That string is alleged to ensure an even match. But that string also hobbles the ability to test truth by restricting the source and scope of the tests. So in order to accept the tantalizing offer we have to agree to the condition, one of whose side effects is the effective lowering of the bar. How do we know that wasn't IDW's original intent?

We counterpropose a different method to ensure even-handedness: the prevailing ground rules. That method is shown empirically to work reasonably well in safeguarding the rights of the minority. It also avoids the side effect of reducing the rigor with which ideas are tested. In my opinion it's a reasonable compromise between our concerns and IDW's. But it was rejected outright; IDW accepts only his ground rules. That exercise rather effectively separates the two effects of his proposed ground rules (i.e., the assurance of fairness and the reduction in rigor) and exposes which one he appears to value the most.

I mentioned the false pretense as a characteristic of the false-dilemma ploy. And I've outlined how one possible false pretense has been brought to the fore. It's now appropriate to wait for IDW's comment on that exposure. Clearly begging the supposed singular fairness of his ground rules will not be a sufficient justification moving forward.

But another characteristic of the false-dilemma ploy is the almost irresistable nature of the pledge. The false dilemma offers a quid pro quo. The quo is almost always a bait-and-switch proposition. And the quid is usually so attractive that only either a great fool or an evil despot would pass it up. That is, the proponent makes the deal so uncommonly sweet that he can argue plausibly that any rebuff must have an ulterior motive. If I or we refuse his offer, we're either great fools or evil despots, because the offer was obviously attractive enough to generate bona fide interest.

The proponent usually expects a rebuff in the false-dilemma ploy, so his quid can be as empty a promise as it needs to be. The goal is usually to read ulterior motives into the rebuff, and that option fails if the offer is taken. If IDW promises to change his stripes, then we ought to give him a fair chance to prove it. But in grabbing for the quid we'd be foolish to forget that this quid is fairly incredible on its face. It's attractive because conspiracy theorists don't habitually work like that. It's also suspicious because conspiracy theorists don't habitulaly work like that, IDW in particular. It's one thing to start someone off with a clean slate and treat him on par with others. It's another thing altogether to grant someone additional privilege merely on his promise to straighten up and fly right.

Now go back and read a few IDW posts in this thread. Our egos have been appropriately stroked. He gave his opinion that we are people of calm disposition and considered intellect. Clearly he doesn't intend to explain our rebuff as foolishness. He expects us to recognize the value of his quid. So if we recognize it but fail to capitalize on it, that's the basis for arguing that we have an ulterior motive for rebuffing the offer. In the dichotomy above, that means the Evil Despot scenario.

IDW has already given us a sneak preview. He tells us that the traditional history of Apollo is "supposition" and that it hasn't been "adequately proved." He tells us that my appearance on television is a straw man because I didn't answer the hard questions. He suspects that Bart Sibrel works for us because he offers such ridiculously and easily-dispelled claims. All of that is consistent with a general claim that we are intentionally overstating the case for Apollo and avoiding meaningful investigation. In other words, that we are Evil Despots defending a known-weak official story for ideological reasons. If that's indeed what IDW plans explicitly to argue in the grand scheme, then he would do well to get that statement over and done with rather than to hint at it.

Go back to the very first post in this thread, and then to at least one intermediate post. There IDW fairly makes explicit that if I refuse his offer, it will be tantamount in his mind to an admission of cowardice. Having eliminated foolishness, he concludes indirectly that the "only" reason left (i.e., false-dilemma) for a rebuff is unwillingness to face his onslaught of evidence. Note how the expected outcome and the alleged reason was given before I even opened my mouth.

The false-dilemma ploy doesn't work because there's no dilemma. Rebuffing some ostensibly attractive offer doesn't have to be as the result of either foolishness or duplicity. It may be the result of unwillingness to accept the hidden premise. The hidden premise here is the weakening of the critical framework under which we operate, so as to potentially bless a weaker proposition than usual.

The reason I can write so extensively on this point is that the false dilemma is the oldest trick in the book, well used in governmental politics and just about any other occasion when something needs to be judged other than on the facts. Senator Bob steps to the podium and says, "Senator Tim opposed the 'Think Of The Children' act. Is this the level of concern we should expect from our leaders?" And come to find out, Senator Tim voted against the bill not because he hates children, but because the bill contained a lot of questionable funding to benefit Senator Bob's home state.

Shall we continue to treat IDW with the utmost gentility? Absolutely. Shall we methodically and dispassionately address any pertinent claims he makes? Absolutely. But I think there's enough evidence to continue to make continued wariness not quite paranoid.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-01, 07:00 PM
I would prefer to engage Jay simply because he is the most well known of the Apollo proponents

Irrelevant. If the discussion is to be about facts instead of people, then anyone who has knowledge of a pertinent fact is welcome.

...he carries himself like an unimpeachable expert in public

I make no such representation, and I'm sure others are quite able to form their own opinions about how I carry myself.

...and that makes him a ligitmate debator in the readers' eyes.

First, the question is about which ideas have the most merit, not which individual proponent is the most "legitimate."

Second, I'm sure the readers can form their own opinions about whose ideas and presentation are legitimate, but only if they are allowed to observe the performance of all who care to contribute. I don't recognize you or anyone else as the appropriate judge of what the general readership may find valuable.

He is your representative on the telivision...

I do not represent anyone but myself. Your continued insinuations to the contrary have been universally repudiated by all affected.

let him be here for a bit. Just one thread , locked to everyone else.

Your terms have been rejected by me and by the moderators, and reasons given by both for the rejection. Is it more important to you to have your ideas heard or to have your favorable ground rules?

JayUtah
2007-Aug-01, 07:49 PM
...appears to me you are attempting to instigate a fight before we ever get started by sterotyping me as a nutcase.

No one that I can see is using the word "nutcase" or any other form of insult. No one is treating you yet in a way that seems inappropriate, argumentative, or dismissive.

However, keep in mind that you are asking for special treatment on no more significant a basis than your presumption that without it you will be treated shabbily. Despite a rather cordial welcome, you seem to want to make that presumption come true. Yes, I have some questions about your motive. I have expressed the completely and honestly and laid out my case. In my opinion, that bears on the decision of whether you should be afforded special treatment.

Svector
2007-Aug-01, 11:58 PM
I could be wrong and I appologize in advance if I am, butt appears to me you are attempting to instigate a fight before we ever get started by sterotyping me as a nutcase. I think if you want to be treated well, you should suggest by example, as I have.

:confused:

You think *I'm* trying to instigate a fight? I'm sorry IW, nothing is further from the truth.

I was simply requesting more information from hheb. He stated that a few dozen HBs (hoax believers) had joined this forum over the years, and had started in a similar fashion as you - promising to cover topics in a linear fashion, without goalpost shifting. I was only asking him to clarify that statement a bit, as I haven't been here as long and was curious who these people were. I had no intention of instigating anything, other than the dissemination of some information relevant to this thread.


Administrators should remove this post and the one that is quoted on it .

Your objection is so noted. I'm sure if the mods find my post improper, they will remove it and warn me. When it comes to rules violations here, they don't take sides.

dgavin
2007-Aug-02, 03:32 AM
Interdimensional Warrior.

While I can sypathize with your desire for One-on-one debate, this Forum really isn't the medium for that.

However I would like to see you continue with your idea. I can personally promise that unless you tread into a subject that within my field of expertise, that I won't be joing in the debate. My fields of expertise include Demolition, Computers, and Vulcanology, (or some subject I've personaly researched, such as the amount of radiation in the Van Allen belt)

I expect that there won't be much Vulcanology in your debate however so no worries there eh?:)

ineluki
2007-Aug-02, 11:09 AM
Echoed. IW, if you want to argue Apollo didn't happen, you need to make a claim (with evidence) showing Apollo didn't happen. And you'll need to accept that such a discussion necessarily requires details and specifics.

So far it looks like IDW's thread is already headed into an "alleged vacuum".

So far we have
IDW: How does it work?
A: Explanation about Heat Transfer and cooling

IDW This wouldn't work
A: How do you know

IDW: Do my homework and provide the exact data.

Moose
2007-Aug-02, 12:45 PM
IDW: Do my homework and provide the exact data.

So far, it's going exactly like all of the others. My hopes may yet be dashed.

Extracelestial
2007-Aug-02, 03:34 PM
To Interdimensional Warrior and JayUtah,
watching this discussion from afar I wonder what exactly is the point of a one-on-one debate?

What would be gained scientifically or cognition-wise from a combat like discussion of two people? Certainly less than from a broad discussion of the subject and it is to fear that this this kind of diskussion easily conceals that this discussion should concern itself with topics and not with persons. Otherwise irethorics and not facts may decide the outcome of such a western-style discussion.

Therefore, I do agree with JayUtah not to take up the bait of such a discussion because it does not serve any purpose appart from providing a platform for publicity seekers.

Extracelestial

Moose
2007-Aug-02, 04:00 PM
Now whether or not IDW is following this game plan still remains to be seen, but I will say my doubt is steadily fading.

... and my doubt is gone.

[Edit: Oh crap, that was supposed to be a "quote", not an edit, and my browser history no longer has the original. Ack.]

JayUtah
2007-Aug-02, 04:14 PM
There is no scientific or truth-finding purpose served by one-on-one debate. It serves only to limit the array of criticism that can be brought against an idea to that which the individual critic has mastered. BAUT has a reputation for hard-nosed criticism, so if one can say to have stumped BAUT then that is a remarkable feather to wear in one's cap. I do not agree with any approach that artificially waters down criticism yet purports to be rigorous.

As of this writing, IDW has adopted a tactic of making brief, baseless allegations of fact and then implying it is the responsibility of his critics to provide detailed, complete refutations for them. That is, he has both shifted and expanded the burden of proof. Earlier I wrote that the so-called "level" playing field is really skewed in favor of the conspiracy theories for exactly this reason: it's easy to only make accusation and only ask questions; it's more difficult to provide real insight and understanding. Can you imagine the state of affairs if the burden-shifting we're seeing were combined with the arbitrary restriction that only one spokesman respond?

Clearly the premise that IDW would be improperly swamped with criticism has been undermined. His behavior has invalidated the grounds upon which he requested special treatment. He is, in fact, trying to swamp his critics with the burden to educate him.

Bob B.
2007-Aug-02, 07:29 PM
It seems to me IDW is using the same tactics he use a couple years ago at GLP. Nothing has changed except the discussion isn't as nasty.

EDIT:

For those who may not know or remember, IDW's tactic generally went something like this:

1) Claim to have great intellect and expertise in the subject matter but never actually produce anything such as a calculation.

2) Goad your opponents into doing all the research and work with statements like, "if you're such an expert surely you would know this".

3) After your opponents have done all the hard work, claim you already knew it all.

Dave J
2007-Aug-02, 08:02 PM
I for one don't mind digging into the books and .pdf's, I've learned a bunch doing it the last couple of days (I even understand everything Jay posts on the other thread, that's a benchmark).
Now, with all this evidence in hand, will IDW a)understand it, and b) accept it as trashing his original contention?
We'll see soon enough.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-02, 08:20 PM
...with all this evidence in hand, will IDW a)understand it, and b) accept it as trashing his original contention?
We'll see soon enough.

Don't forget c) he slightly moves the "goalpost" and says that what he said was not what he meant.

sts60
2007-Aug-02, 08:40 PM
IDW's tone has been generally civil. Let's not worry about his attitude; let's let this thing play out, rather than continually challenging his motivations. (And, yes, I remember and participated in the GLP thread, so I'm not being naive.)

Dave J
2007-Aug-02, 09:14 PM
you're right STS, I don't need to be throwing kindling about...

Bob B.
2007-Aug-02, 10:19 PM
I for one don't mind digging into the books and .pdf's

I don't mind either, but we mustn't allow IDW to weasel out of the responsibility to support his own claims by handing everything to him on a silver platter.

JayUtah
2007-Aug-03, 12:18 AM
Agreed. The matter of motive is relevant only to his request for special treatment. Now that the need for that special treatment has been repudiated, the interest in motive wanes.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm enjoying the new and improved IDW far better than the GLP version. But in my opinion he's still bobbing and weaving, and that's not allowed.

Serenitude
2007-Aug-03, 07:18 AM
Please feel free to discuss a theoretical 1v1, but as far as I know, unless I were to be directly over-ruled (and don't count on it) by Phil or Fraser, the PUBLIC in public forum will always prevail - no 1v1.

Granted - if I had to present a single mind to out-debate the evil Russion ala Rocky, it would be Jay, hands down. But many people bring up points, facts, knowledge, and perspective he does not, and this isn't the proper forum for gunslinger-HBers hunting for Jay trophies. And I know Jay is the first to agree. Public or locked. Those are the only two choices. Should an OP ignore other input, they will have no thread at all ;)

Obviousman
2007-Aug-03, 08:27 AM
Ah well - Being the eternal optimist I am, I thought that it might be possible that a leopard changes it's spots. I thought that IDW might actually want to have a reasoned discussion - but no. Same ol, same ol. Ignore anything you disagree with, claim victory as Rome burns around you.

People, next time I try to give a HB a chance, slap me around a little and remind me of IDW.

Thanks!

agingjb
2007-Aug-03, 08:49 AM
At the risk of repeating myself, the only question for an HB is just how a "hoax" - involving, world wide, thousands of people - was planned, organised, executed, and sustained.

I suppose there must be intelligent people who sincerely believe in the "hoax" (I've been attacked in the past for expressing doubts about the existence of this group); I wonder how they would behave here.

Serenitude
2007-Aug-03, 08:58 AM
Ah well - Being the eternal optimist I am, I thought that it might be possible that a leopard changes it's spots. I thought that IDW might actually want to have a reasoned discussion - but no. Same ol, same ol. Ignore anything you disagree with, claim victory as Rome burns around you.

People, next time I try to give a HB a chance, slap me around a little and remind me of IDW.

Thanks!

Don't feel bad. I tried at the end there, too ;) You'll never go wrong being the better person ;)

Svector
2007-Aug-03, 09:23 AM
Ah well - Being the eternal optimist I am, I thought that it might be possible that a leopard changes it's spots. I thought that IDW might actually want to have a reasoned discussion - but no. Same ol, same ol.

Same here, OM. After witnessing such familiar patterns of behavior from HBs over long periods, I should've known better, but the optimist in me needed to believe otherwise.

In retrospect my optimism was paradoxical. I hoped someone whose belief system was formed by embracing speculation, illogic, and pseudoscience, would rationally defend his views using facts, logic and real science.

<homer>Doh!</homer>


People, next time I try to give a HB a chance, slap me around a little and remind me of IDW.

Somewhere there's a 12-step program for people with our affliction. :shifty:

Mellow
2007-Aug-03, 09:48 AM
Agreed here too, I was actually looking forward to IDW holding a point by point debate here, but hey ho.

Grashtel
2007-Aug-03, 11:47 AM
Add me to the list of people disappointed -though not surprised- by IDW turning out to to be little different from the standard HB.

AtomicDog
2007-Aug-03, 12:15 PM
Since this episode is now over, we need a name for it. May I suggest the Interdimensional War?

Polite Reasonable Rabid D
2007-Aug-03, 12:55 PM
Well, that was just - weird. I feel like I've been in a real-life Monty Python skit.

dgavin
2007-Aug-03, 01:06 PM
IDW,

Well I was watching your debate thread that got locked, and there are a few things I would like to go on record about.

You asked for a point by point debate. Yet when multitudes of people provided proof, schematics, specifications, and examples of the cooling systems. . . You ignored them.

And you accuse this forum as not being a science ? Yet you were the one ignoring the science. Thats really bad form man. You were asked many time to site source, math, etc... and never once did.

If you want to see some real science, might I suggest the ongoing Mt. St. Helen's (Mt. Slab) thread. You'll note that there is no arguing of points on it. If i made a mistake, I come out and say it! (see my Newberry Caldera Strikes Back thread for a good example of that)

You were asked a few of the same questions multiple times, and patently ignored them. Thats not science and thats not debating. Instead you went on about your main argument, or shifted it to something else. There is a word for that. Filibustering.
That is definitely not how to debate science.

You had an opportunity to actually learn something about the cooling systems. I know I did. However in your mind there is no such thing as a credible source, unless it's in support of your own thinking. You said we were closed minded but who was the one ignoring the facts, accusing people of being disinformation agents for the government, etc etc etc.

It was you. The only closed mind was yours, which is why that thread became an argument, and not a debate.

If you want to discuss scientific topics, you have to come with an approach that, No you don't know everything, and pay attention to facts as they are presented. No matter how much you don't like those facts.

A person that thinks they know everything about any topic, can never learn again. Which is what seems to have happened to you.

Yes this is a critique of you, because you critiqued us.

In summary I found your original approach refreshing, but a lie.

(To Moderators: I know this post is treading on thin ice, but I think an honest critique of him is in order. If you must pull this and bap me for it, I quite understand)

Swift
2007-Aug-03, 01:37 PM
Same here, OM. After witnessing such familiar patterns of behavior from HBs over long periods, I should've known better, but the optimist in me needed to believe otherwise.

In retrospect my optimism was paradoxical. I hoped someone whose belief system was formed by embracing speculation, illogic, and pseudoscience, would rationally defend his views using facts, logic and real science.

<homer>Doh!</homer>

Somewhere there's a 12-step program for people with our affliction. :shifty:
I hope there isn't (a 12-step program). We have nothing we need to be cured of.

I know it is hard, but I think we as a community need to continue our behavior - follow the rules, be as polite as we can, stick to the facts, address the points of the HBers. I think we should applaud ourselves for our exemplary behavior. I think we are doing a great service to science, history, and the world at large.

No, we probably won't change people like IDW. Yes, we have seen it all before, time and time again, so that we can very accurately predict the outcome. But I feel that each time we must go into the fight with the hope that maybe this person will be different. If we don't, we are lowering ourselves to their level.

@ the mods - Since this discussion now seems to not be about a particular conspiracy, maybe it should be moved to About BAUT.

Amber Robot
2007-Aug-03, 02:02 PM
Although I agree with the arguments presented here as to why a one-on-one debate was refused, I see that an advantage of such an approach would have been that much energy would have been saved because the debate would never have gotten past his initial assertion. He would have had to back that up before any further debate would have been possible, and he never did so. Having a long discussion on the thermal properties of the Apollo capsule presented by multiple board members, despite being educational, allowed him to claim that he was being overwhelmed and unable to present his argument. I would really liked to have seen no one respond to anything until he could support his very first statement.

After reading that entire thread the only things I could make out of his argument were the following:

- he believed that the capsule would have gotten too hot for humans to survive inside
- he based this belief on his experience with a DeLorean automobile on a hot day
- he stated that he did not have enough information to do a proper calculation to support his belief, yet believed it anyway

hhEb09'1
2007-Aug-03, 02:06 PM
Having a long discussion on the thermal properties of the Apollo capsule presented by multiple board members, despite being educational, allowed him to claim that he was being overwhelmed and unable to present his argument.I don't see the downside. I mean, no matter what the response, a poster could come up with some sort of excuse.
- he stated that he did not have enough information to do a proper calculation to support his belief, yet believed it anywayThere ya go

PS: as an example, what if we did do it one-on-one? With a similar outcome, couldn't he claim that he was being "ganged up on" behind the scenes? That our rep was being fed lines by a cadre of information tools--in other words, no different than now, but we would look worse for being "sekret"

Nicolas
2007-Aug-03, 02:18 PM
I don't see wasted energy from our side. I learned from what others told me about the cooling system (I didn't know acitve circulation was involved, but it certainly explains quite a few things :)), I'm sure others learend as well. The Op may have not, but that's not our energy which is wasted.

grmcdorman
2007-Aug-03, 02:30 PM
I was thinking of posting a diagram showing how light/IR radiation from multiple sources is hitting the car - and that these sources are missing for a spacecraft. I suspect that would have been harder to hand-wave away.

Oh well. As other people commented, I did learn things - like the equation for the equilibrium temperature for an ideal body in space. (BTW, any chance of getting the LaTex module installed so proper equations can be posted? Or would too few people use it to make it worthwhile?)

Amber Robot
2007-Aug-03, 03:04 PM
PS: as an example, what if we did do it one-on-one? With a similar outcome, couldn't he claim that he was being "ganged up on" behind the scenes? That our rep was being fed lines by a cadre of information tools--in other words, no different than now, but we would look worse for being "sekret"

Perhaps, but there could be a situation where there would be no response at all, instead of dozens of posts from various BAUT members, until he actually put forth his argument. There could be no "ganging up" if there were no postings.

korjik
2007-Aug-03, 03:53 PM
So, what does IDW do now? Go back to whatever nutjob hole he came from and brag to all his buddies that he ran into the dragons den and mooned them?

I still find it both amazing and sad just how many people there are that think that debate consists of making an assertion then insulting any disagreers louder and louder until the give up. If he had just followed through with any of his claims, he may of actually learned something.

Then again, since it was fairly obvious that he was here to play the martyr, not to debate, I guess that the result was not really suprising.

NEOWatcher
2007-Aug-03, 04:05 PM
So, what does IDW do now? Go back to whatever nutjob hole he came from and brag to all his buddies that he ran into the dragons den and mooned them?
Sure; why not... well, at least until his buddies ask why he doesn't sit down anymore.

Anyway; All of Jay's responses were addressing IDW. If IDW had not responded to anyone but Jay, then it would have been a one-on-one no matter how noisy the surrounding crowd was.
And; If everyone else had noticed that IDW was not responding to anyone other than Jay, I would be willing to bet that the noise would have dropped considerably.

Serenitude
2007-Aug-03, 05:47 PM
Just a reminder to the "wasted energy" line of thought - we are all volunteers here, from the moderators to the members. Nobody 'forces' us to point our browsers in the direction of the CT forum and engage in science. So, if we do, we obviously want to. And if we're doing something we want to do, on our free time, sans pay, I'd hardly call that 'wasted'. Just my personal opinion.

BertL
2007-Aug-03, 06:02 PM
Just a reminder to the "wasted energy" line of thought - we are all volunteers here, from the moderators to the members. Nobody 'forces' us to point our browsers in the direction of the CT forum and engage in science. So, if we do, we obviously want to. And if we're doing something we want to do, on our free time, sans pay, I'd hardly call that 'wasted'. Just my personal opinion.
What if someone's addicted to the BAUT Forums and its Conspiracy Theories section?

Dave J
2007-Aug-03, 07:58 PM
I had hopes, but that hard turn he took last night floored me. A fairly civil back and forth, not particularly productive, then a violent veer int "ban me" ...then into "hoax-speak" with the gubmint stooge/paid liar stuff...whatever fence he was sitting on is sawdust now.
Wow...never seen an implosion like that before. Unfortunate.

Moose
2007-Aug-03, 08:00 PM
Anyway; All of Jay's responses were addressing IDW.

Most. Not all.

nomuse
2007-Aug-03, 08:11 PM
I have a slightly divergent perception of the thread. I don't think the posters "ganged up." Most of them stayed on-topic, illuminating in slightly different ways what was a singular core response; a description of the real science (and links on where to learn more). The majority of the posters also avoided direct questions.

This means the only onus on IDW was to read at least a little of what was presented. Well, I read the entire thread. I don't see it as an onerous chore to do so! He didn't have to reply or respond to individuals; he only had to respond to the consensus description.

If that is "ganging up," then so is a science teacher lecturing while you have your textbook open on the same subject. You still only have to write on the blackboard once.

Anla'Shok
2007-Aug-03, 08:22 PM
IDW was here for one reason only. To get banned so he can tell all his chums that Baut could not silence him and his truth any other way. He came gunning and got what he wanted. He did not want answers, though he got a lot of good replies, I learned a whole lot, of course I'll forget it by bedtime. You people did your best, it's him who failed.

Svector
2007-Aug-03, 08:25 PM
I hope there isn't (a 12-step program). We have nothing we need to be cured of.


I was only referring to Obviousman and myself with regard to our optimism toward IDW's promises. I wasn't referring to the whole board.




.

Swift
2007-Aug-03, 09:22 PM
Originally Posted by Swift
I hope there isn't (a 12-step program). We have nothing we need to be cured of.I was only referring to Obviousman and myself with regard to our optimism toward IDW's promises. I wasn't referring to the whole board.
I didn't think you were implying anything else, but the thought raised larger issues for me.

There has been a lot of discussion, from many posters, as to whether we "ganging-up" on HBers, whether we should have treated IDW differently, should there been a 1 on 1 debate, etc. All I was saying is I think our process and are culture here are really pretty good, and I don't see a pressing need to change those.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-03, 10:47 PM
There has been a lot of discussion, from many posters, as to whether we "ganging-up" on HBers, whether we should have treated IDW differently, should there been a 1 on 1 debate, etc. All I was saying is I think our process and are culture here are really pretty good, and I don't see a pressing need to change those.

I am in total aggrement with what Swift has posted. As far as "ganging-up" on IDW, there were a number of posters asking the same question (where are your calculations?), which should have made IDW's "job" easier.

captain swoop
2007-Aug-03, 10:58 PM
IDW got exactly what he wanted from the whole episode, it played right into his hands.

Svector
2007-Aug-03, 10:58 PM
I had hopes, but that hard turn he took last night floored me. A fairly civil back and forth, not particularly productive, then a violent veer int "ban me" ...then into "hoax-speak" with the gubmint stooge/paid liar stuff...whatever fence he was sitting on is sawdust now.
Wow...never seen an implosion like that before. Unfortunate.

It seemed almost scripted, didn't it?

-----------------------------------

Day 1, 20:25 - Enter forum, begin thread using most courteous tone possible. Make request for sit-down with JW. Use flattering language and promise to behave. Emphasize willingness to keep on-topic -- ABs love that, and some may even go into temporary shock at the prospect of an HB committing to it and following through. Lay it on thick and make your move while they're still dazed and confused.

Day 2, 01:14 - Reiterate necessity of no third-party intervention when inevitable objections arise. Drive home perception that "Jay is the guy", and emphasize that you're only interested in being seen engaging him. If you can pull it off, this will greatly enhance your street cred when you return to the flock. Don't forget to use excuses about "being ganged up on", and making the requisite appeals for fairness.

Day 2, 01:42 - Introduce notion that your many hoax arguments are not in the mainstream and have never been broached previously. ABs love the prospect of tackling a brand new claim. Play up the multiple, unique arguments angle, even though you'll actually be using one old, tired one.

Day 2, 10:37 - As skepticism of your motives inevitably grows, reassure the ABs that you are a "fence-sitter" who's only seeking truth. Make them think your opinions have not been set in stone. This should soften them and make them more receptive to your crusade for truth.

Day 2, 10:48 - At this point it may be clear that a 1v1 is not gonna happen. If so, resort to fallback strategy and acquiesce to their demands for group participation. Be prepared to largely ignore the outsiders. Your prime target is JW.

Day 2, 11:00 - Begin debate by presenting your position disguised as an innocent question about spacecraft cooling. Set parameters for discussion depth by issuing restriction on acceptable data. As a layperson, you need to keep the meat of the discussion basic so you can follow it. Handicapping Jay in this manner should give you an edge.

Day 2, 11:01 ~ 19:00 - Remain relatively cordial while deflecting general questions and ignoring technical ones. If any mathematical formulas are presented for analysis, pretend they don't exist. Keep a sharp eye out for any slight criticism or observations which seem "confrontational", even if they're correct. You'll use these later to plead your case for abuse.

Day 2, 19:39 - Use one of the aforementioned critiques to begin your sympathy drive. Complain about how the group approach is unfair, disorganized, and beneath you. This will give you an easy out should things get out of hand (i.e. they continue asking relevant questions).

Day 3, 00:02 - Introduce conflicting arguments for your position as a means of buying time. Make statements to the effect that electronic components only run warm if improperly installed, and that the thermodynamic properties of spacecraft covering materials have little or no bearing on heat absorption. This will generate activity within the hive and give you time to formulate your followups. If you're feeling especially adventurous, make an additional comment about car radiators being virtually identical to the ones used on Apollo. (warning: recommended for advanced users only)

Day 3, 03:00 - When the technical documents which provide the data you've pretended to be seeking are inevitably presented, give one of the standard excuses as to why you can't access them. Time-tested favorites include, "my firewall won't allow it", and "I don't have the new version of Acrobat installed", and "I only have a dialup connection". Choose only one excuse. Suspicion about your motives or sincerity may grow if you use all three.

Day 3, 10:01 - Throw regs a biscuit by admitting ignorance of the protective command module cover. If they see your ability to surrender minor points, it may renew their optimism in your ability to stick to the game plan. This will buy some time so that you may continue ignoring direct questions.

Day 3, 17:22 - Restate difficulty in accessing PDF file(s). Whatever you do, make sure not to admit to possession of any technical data which could be used to refute your claims. Goal: obfuscation through feigned ignorance.

Day 3, 21:36 - Begin end-game in earnest by complaining about unfair debate conditions and perceived abusive tactics by debate opponent(s). If you're lucky enough to have someone accuse you of being "ordinary", use that example to full effect when appealing to the moderator(s) for assistance. Reassure readers that you will not leave the debate, regardless of how severe the perceived oppression.

Day 3, 23:22 - Formally request to leave the debate, citing evidence of severe oppression. Also throw in favorites like collusion, lying, concealment, double-standards and uneven enforcement of regulations. Return to flock and receive martyrdom badge. File complete report and leave with receptionist upon departure.





.

grant hutchison
2007-Aug-03, 11:02 PM
Oh well. As other people commented, I did learn things - like the equation for the equilibrium temperature for an ideal body in space.Ah, so it wasn't as futile a post as it seemed at the time. :)
If you're interested, there are actually two different approximations that turn up in the textbooks:

T = Ts x ([1-A]/4)^0.25 x (Rs/d)^0.5

represents a body that is effectively the same temperature all over, because it rotates quickly or conducts/retains heat well.

T = Ts x ([1-A]/2)^0.25 x (Rs/d)^0.5

is the same equation but with a "2" instead of a "4" under the albedo term. It better represents an object with a cold dark side, which does most of its reradiating from the hotter, sun-facing side.

Grant Hutchison

grmcdorman
2007-Aug-03, 11:33 PM
Thanks.

The equation looks better if you use ... for the powers, by the way:


T = Ts x ([1-A]/4)0.25 x (Rs/d)0.5

appears as:

T = Ts x ([1-A]/4)0.25 x (Rs/d)0.5

(although isn't the math convention to use italics for variables? - i.e. something like


T = Ts x ([1-A]/4)0.25 x (Rs/d)0.5

Bob B.
2007-Aug-03, 11:38 PM
Excellent synopsis, Svector.

grant hutchison
2007-Aug-03, 11:43 PM
The equation looks better if you use ... for the powers, by the way:It does.
I have absolutely no idea why I didn't do that. :)

Grant Hutchison

grmcdorman
2007-Aug-04, 12:33 AM
It does.
I have absolutely no idea why I didn't do that. :)Um, brain bluescreen? :p

Maksutov
2007-Aug-04, 02:46 AM
I think this quote from another (now-closed) thread sums things up rather nicely (although probably unintentionally)
I am am man of integity, convictions and principals that I will not compromise in a **** slinging contest with the 'superstar' propagandist Jay and his cohorts here.Based on the now-departed HB's demonstration of scientific and technical knowledge, it appears that there was a belief that just a background in high school (those are run by principals, right? http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif) sciences would be sufficient to understand and then disbelieve the intricacies of Apollo hardware and software design, development, testing, manufacturing, and deployment.

A lot of HB claims can be demonstrated to be without merit by good sense, simple math, and a basic understanding of how the world works. But comprehension of many aspects of what actually happened and why during the Apollo program quite often requires a firm knowledge of calculus, material science, orbital mechanics, thermodynamics, programming, and other scientific and engineering fields.

Thus the problem (for the HB) arises that they just don't understand the objective evidence being provided to them and have recourse to two main choices: either admit they were wrong or ignore what they don't understand and continue to believe in their particular hoax delusion.

The vast majority of HBs tend to go with the latter. But every now and then one goes with the former, which makes this part of the BAUT completely worthwhile.

DALeffler
2007-Aug-06, 06:19 AM
I firmly believe that half the problem with moon landing hoax believers is not that the moon landings actually happened but rather that moon landings aren't happening now.

The science was never understood and it still isn't understood by 99.99 percent of paying tax payers.

The "folly" of NASA was doing something so difficult and making it seem so easy: NASA brought back people from a mission that went so wrong that no one was expected to survive.

Challanger and then Columbia slammed home (hard) exactly the type of "business" NASA does.

Why isn't it easier now?

Because it's still that hard to do...