New Change for Conspiracy Theory section: only space and astronomy

[Serenitude]

My apologies, let me rephrase that, then.

"As far as Planet X in relation to Sitchin and Kugler, yes, it's a CT."

As far as Matese, et. al., they are referring to an entirely different concept, and it's intellectually dishonest of you to link the two. A 55 AU pertuber tossing about comets is NOT the same thing as Sumerian Gods who came and stole our gold, genetically engineering H. S. Sapiens in the process, on a planet that wanders in now and again and smashes other planets.

If, not when, that "Planet X" is found, the relationship will be wholly coincidental.

So as not to look like I'm talking to myself, A.DIM's post, that I replied to, is gone.

[A.DIM]

Yes, I removed mine since it was obviously OT.

As all can see, Serenitude has taken it upon himself to determine "Planet X" is a conspiracy.

I'm actually waiting for a Mod to say whether or not it really should be considered as such.

[Serenitude]

Yes, I removed mine since it was obviously OT.

As all can see, Serenitude has taken it upon himself to determine "Planet X" is a conspiracy.

I'm actually waiting for a Mod to say whether or not it really should be considered as such.

Nice try for a setup, but I was merely following the wording of your posting, instead of correcting the details of your idea, as it really just wasn't worth it. However, you reply again in kind, bait me into answering, delete your post, quote my post, and then cry foul, attempting to make me look foolish in the process - yes, I'm interested to see the mod reaction, also. I do hope you've reported my post. Again, nice try, though

[Donnie B.]

55 AU pertuber...

...seems like a long way to go for a potato.

(Sorry, just trying to share a chuckle.)

[Serenitude]

...seems like a long way to go for a potato.

(Sorry, just trying to share a chuckle.)

I stand corrected. I would have to say that potatoes orbiting at the Kuiper Cliff would be ATM

[galacsi]

A good decision , I never posted in this thread , whatever my opinion. First , because it has nothing to do with astronomy , two it give a bad image to this site , three because it is too much ideological , dividing topics without any results.You dont learn anything from these threads.

Let post on our common matter of interest : astronomy even if we disagree seriously on many issues.

[Van Rijn]

Is Planet X really a CT?

As the term has been used around here by proponents, it certainly is a CT.

I mean, there are mainstream astronomers actively searching for it, no?

No. There are astronomers that are looking for more bodies in the outer solar system, and some constraints can be placed on what they could find (for instance, above a certain mass at a certain distance they would already have been noticed). There isn't much to be said about any such bodies until we have evidence for them.

[Doodler]

Is Planet X really a CT?

I mean, there are mainstream astronomers actively searching for it, no?

Planet X isn't CT, or ATM, or whatever, so long as the proposed idea doesn't put the cart before the horse.

Trying to show evidence pointing at a possible tenth (or ninth, according to the IAU, though I'll choke before I put it out of parentheses) planet is fine, so long as observed data is used, not overly parsed ancient myths or doomsday delusions.

[Fazor]

I think the point is "planet X" tends to be a generic term for a body(or bodies) that may exist based on observation or probability, and also used (because it sounds so cool) as the name for some "alien planet/planet-craft" that roams the galaxy building pryamids and moon-faces. One is an astronomy discussion and the other is...to be polite...a CT. (also better words to describe it but I'll stay within BAUT rules )

Only downfall to all this is I'll haveta go back to daily comic-strips to get my daily dose of humor, as now that the non (outer)space/science CT's are locked, CT-section activity is drastically lower

[A.DIM]

I see the truncated EKB, Sedna, CR105, et al. as evidence for Planet X.

No CT at all.

This is of course, regardless of my knowledge of Myth, Sitchin, etc.

[A.DIM]

As the term has been used around here by proponents, it certainly is a CT.

But you know better than them, right?

No. There are astronomers that are looking for more bodies in the outer solar system, and some constraints can be placed on what they could find (for instance, above a certain mass at a certain distance they would already have been noticed). There isn't much to be said about any such bodies until we have evidence for therm.

You're saying that Stern, Brown, Murray, Matese, etc., regardless of how different their evidences for Planet X are, are not actively searching for the perturber?

[Van Rijn]

I see the truncated EKB, Sedna, CR105, et al. as evidence for Planet X.


No CT at all.

If and when there is evidence for a large body in the outer solar system, it will no doubt be discussed in the Astronomy section. Nobody has ever argued that there couldn't be other bodies in the outer solar system. But anything like the Planet X claims as stated by the proponents, no. Those are CTs.

This is of course, regardless of my knowledge of Myth, Sitchin, etc.

If so, why bring up such an obvious point?

[A.DIM]

If and when there is evidence for a large body in the outer solar system, it will no doubt be discussed in the Astronomy section. Nobody has ever argued that there couldn't be other bodies in the outer solar system. But anything like the Planet X claims as stated by the proponents, no. Those are CTs.

Well, I'd say it is more akin to ATM than CT, but whatever.

If so, why bring up such an obvious point?

Because inevitably, no matter what I present as evidence, "skeptics" will attribute all I say to "sitchinism."

[Doodler]

Because inevitably, no matter what I present as evidence, "skeptics" will attribute all I say to "sitchinism."

Time and effort do make a difference.

It could once have been said anything I posted in any thread concerning belief would be attributable automatically as an attack on religion. Took a bit of doing, and the occassional third, fourth, or fifth edit, or sometimes just huffing and closing the editor, but I got away from that.

[A.DIM]

I'm unsure what it is you're telling me to try, if anything at all?

[Doodler]

I'm unsure what it is you're telling me to try, if anything at all?

Meaning, provided you lay off the Sitchin references while trying to define what a possible Planet X is, eventually, and probably not too long afterwards, not everything you say about a Planet X will be dismissed as Sitchinism in disguise.

[A.DIM]

Oh, I see.

The thing is, outside of Sitchin threads (of which there haven't been any in some time) I've not referred to him unless brought up by others.
Yet, countless threads have gone that direction simply because of my ideas about ETi, Planet X, etc.

[Maksutov]

Careful.

This thread is starting to turn into a Planet X (or pick a letter) discussion. I'm sure the BAUT staff would take a dim view of such a progression.

Meanwhile as mentioned in the other thread, brava/o to the admins and mods for lassoing a runaway steer! It will be nice to get back to subjects having to do with the primary reason for this BB.

[The Bad Astronomer]

A very dim view, if you'll allow the pun.

An A.Dim, I am inclined to agree with what other folks have siad: Planet X as related to Sitchin is indeed both ATM and CT. If you want to talk about real evidence for it, then by all means that is fine. But I also am familiar with your posts, so I would suggest you take a great deal of care.

As far as intellectual dishonesty goes, well, that's a judgment call. However, I am in fact a judge here, and I'll say it again: take a great deal of care. It sounds to me like you are trying to conflate real science (the search for KBOs, etc) with what has been established as being untrue (Sitchinism).

Also, as per the BAUT rules, deleting or otherwise editing an old post is frowned upon.

[AstroSmurf]

I'd just like to add my support for this decision. I was getting very bored with the growing number of 9/11 ... things. There's enough of that on JREF already, and it simply holds nothing of interest. A good CT ought to give you motive to research something you didn't know about, but the 9/11 theories simply don't have any actual content.

Now back to our usual moon hoaxes, doomsday comets and the like...

[MG1962A]

I'd just like to add my support for this decision. I was getting very bored with the growing number of 9/11 ... things. There's enough of that on JREF already, and it simply holds nothing of interest. A good CT ought to give you motive to research something you didn't know about, but the 9/11 theories simply don't have any actual content.

I could not agree with you more. The JREF forum is the natural battle ground for such issues. The rest of this forum proves there is more than enough amazing stuff out there to discuss, we dont have to limit ourselves to planet Earth, when we have the whole universe to cherry pick

[eburacum45]

What about UFO related conspiracies (if any?) I take it they are sufficiently space-related to still be acceptable?

[PhantomWolf]

I've been thinking about this for a few days, and I'm going to step out of line here.

I know that this is Phil and Fraser's board so it's their decision and it will stand no matter what, but I have to disagree with the decision.

It has been long said about this forum that the reason that any CT was allowed was to attempt to promote Critical Thinking, I really can't see that this should have changed. Were there problems, yes, but to my mind, not unsurmountable ones. For a long time we have been asking that rule 13 be applied, and now it has, which is good, but I would have liked to have seen how it would have affected the forum before the topic list was clamped down on.

There are several reasons I say this. Firstly it would have given a chance to see if the problems could have been fixed without the topic clampdown.

Secondly it wouldn't have looked like we lost. Sorry I need to say this. This was one of the few boards out there willing to put CT under a scientific microscope. Yes there are a lot of CT forums out there, but mostly they are run by CT's and many of us that belong to this board don't have the desire or the time to go off to debate on those boards, and it is impossible to hold a scientific and well mannered debate on them anyway. Here that was possible. To end that looks like we can't hack it any more, and that is just wrong. I hate to use a political analogy, but there is one staring me in the face so I'm going too and hope people will see the point rather than getting upset and turning on the idea. I see it a little like pulling out of Iraq with the job half done. Just as doing that will let the extremists and terrorists claim the chased the US out of Iraq, so too here by doing this retreat it is just going to allow the CT's to claim victory, that BAUT is scared and has run from the fight. Yeah I know that they'd have used something similar eventually anyway (usually, "I was banned because...") but this time we've given them huge ammunition and we have no come back.

Thirdly, this board has a lot of talent in engineering, physics, chemistry, geology, history, and more, all able to tackle the aspects of most CT's and educate people on the way. Many of us have learned a great many things from the arguments given against the Non-Astro based CT's posted here, and that opportunity is now lost.

Lasty, in the current climate, I don't think that there are enough Astronomy and Space related CT's out there. Planet X is pretty much dead for the next couple of years. Apollo gets a run through now and then, but it's generally the same old arguments and most of that crowd is focused on 9/11 anyway, and Hogaland's been pretty quiet the last few months. As such, with this restriction of topics, I think this section of the forum is likely to die. It was already one of the slower sections (c.f. ATM of General Science) and now will be even more so. I fear that in the end it will be so slow that it will just be merged into ATM and those of us that do tend to reside in this area will lose it.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to disagree, most people probably will, that's fine, but I can't say I like the decision, I guess though I'm just going to have to live with it just as I did the loss of the Apollo Section in the transfer from BABB to BAUT.

[BigDon]

Yeah but it was those 911 bozos that made me stop posting here rather than risk another, and possibly permanent, banning. What with there unfounded, wholesale murder accusations with the fire, police, and FAA complicent in it.

[The Backroad Astronomer]

well there are the ones that are just show a picture and go theres my proof, also the metaphysical ones were the more annoying to me can't prove them right or wrong.

[Gillianren]

I have to say, I've found the 9/11 pages highly educational, which I did think was the point. (Which reminds me--Davidlpf, it's spelled "grammar"!) The only conspiracy theory to which I can actually contribute reasoned arguments in JFK. I'm interested in Apollo, but I do agree that it's pretty slim pickings these days.

[The Backroad Astronomer]

I have to say, I've found the 9/11 pages highly educational, which I did think was the point. (Which reminds me--Davidlpf, it's spelled "grammar"!) The only conspiracy theory to which I can actually contribute reasoned arguments in JFK. I'm interested in Apollo, but I do agree that it's pretty slim pickings these days.

noted for the future.

[Laguna]

This decision leaves me with a split feelings.
On one side I can understand Phil and Fraser as it is their board and its primary target is astronomy. Now its only target is astronomy.

But I have to agree with PhantomWolf. This board was about critical thinking too, especially in this section. The idea to support critical thinking is gone with this decision, or is at least limited to critical thinking related to astronomy.

Limiting it to astronomy CTs only, confronts me with a problem.
Compared to others on this board, my knowledge about astronomy related CTs, the Apollo-Missions and everything else important to deal with astronomy CTs is marginal and I would have almost nothing to contribute any more. My fields were rather the non astronomical CTs.

So as I have to expect this decision to be final...
I wish everybody a farewell. See ya on the "Clear Your Lurker Flag Here" Thread.
[reactivating lurk mode]

[Neverfly]

PhantomWolf, I was thinking along those same lines too and I Know that myself and others made that same Comment BEFORE the Rule was changed: "Out of all the forums on these topics, only THIS one holds a rational and scientific Control" ". The Newbie that i am-i had asked WHY these non-related CT's were on this forum and if i remember correctly, Tinaa answered saying that it allows rational thinking on Hot topics.

It ALSO seemed to be spinning heavily as one topic was closed- The CT would Open up another one along the same lines- OR One thread opened actually claimed that the Mods were up to "Pretty Low Tactics"...
At one point, why have More than One 911 thread open?

Persoanlly, I had never considered 911 to be an inside job. However many people around me DO consider it one, and i finally had ONE source with reliable rebuttels to their claims.. i learned a LOT about the tragic event that otherwise would have taken me weeks of research and thinking as an individual.I think its important to a Nation that their people rely on Real evidence and correct conclusions- rather than a great many people believing something UNtrue
I agree that there is MUCH that needs fixing right here in the US. Much Freedom has been lost as more and more the government takes more control over our lives. But such Rampant CT as 911 NEED a source that people can look to for reliable insights so that we DONT go barking up the wrong tree.

[Van Rijn]

I have to say, I've found the 9/11 pages highly educational, which I did think was the point. (Which reminds me--Davidlpf, it's spelled "grammar"!) The only conspiracy theory to which I can actually contribute reasoned arguments in JFK. I'm interested in Apollo, but I do agree that it's pretty slim pickings these days.

And I liked reading the JFK arguments as well as other non-space/non-9/11 conspiracies (such as Pearl Harbor).

Regarding this decision, I understand the extra moderator work issue, and I understand it is up to the admins. And, while I did find the 9/11 discussion fruitful in the beginning, it had largely settled down to a certain list of claims that had already been covered many times, when the CTer was bothering to make a clear claim at all. Then again, much the same can be said about moon hoax claims. Personally, I would have liked a tightening up of rules on how claims could be presented, without a restriction to just space related claims. My preference would have been that technical claims would need to be clearly made, and when technical reasons were presented to show why they were in error, the issue would be considered closed unless the claimant requested clarification, or had specific and clear additional material to present. I felt the key problem were the threads that went nowhere, with a vague claim made repeatedly, and all responses ignored.