PDA

View Full Version : "Babel Magazine" (online mag) - January 6, 2002 (LENGTHY art



Magnificent Desolation
2002-Mar-30, 07:55 PM
Unfortunately it seems that our bossom buddy Bart has forced his way into the mind of yet another person .....

Her name is Lisa Guliani and she has now written quite a lengthy article for the online mag "Babel Magazine" (http://www.victorthorn.com/babel/issue41/lunarlies.html)

Hmm ! - I wonder if Hollywood would consider doing a remake of "The Excorcist" ?

The credits should read:

"Starring Bart Sibrel as "The Demon"

Starring Lisa Guliani (or any other innocent hoax believer) as "Regan"

Starring Jay Windley as "Father Merrin"

Starring Phil Plait as "Father Karras"

(And instead of holy water, they would use pulverized moon rocks ...)

Anyway, as mentioned above, the article is at this URL:

http://www.victorthorn.com/babel/issue41/lunarlies.html

A quote:

"If you aren't firmly entrenched by now in the belief that the American government is completely full of [word deleted by The Bad Astronomer], please consider this: No one has ever stepped foot on the moon. You may or may not have heard this statement before. Before you send me all kinds of hate mail - hear me out. I strongly recommend that EVERYONE watch a video entitled: "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon". It was written, produced, and directed by a man named Bart W. Sibrel. Mr. Sibrel spent five years and $500,000 researching this subject. His evidence is not merely convincing, but downright overwhelming. If, after viewing the footage on this film and contemplating the facts and glaring deceptions, you STILL believe any human could possibly have walked on the moon, then please seek help because it definitely means your head is up your [word deleted by The Bad Astronomer]."

(End of quote)

*************

IS THERE AN EXCORCIST IN THE HOUSE ????? JAY ?? PHIL ?? ANYONE ?? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

"Magnificent Desolation"




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Magnificent Desolation on 2002-03-30 14:59 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-03-30 16:39 ]</font>

AstroMike
2002-Mar-30, 08:10 PM
I wish people would start looking at Clavius (http://www.clavius.org) more than Sibrel's crap.

Andrew
2002-Mar-30, 09:05 PM
It's ironic that someome will spout such nonsense about having been deceived into believing that the lunar landings were real, and yet, as soon as they've watched Sibrel's video will blindly accept it's conclusions, without checking with any secondary sources.
And worse, a magazine is actually publishing this rubbish.

The Incubus
2002-Mar-30, 10:58 PM
On 2002-03-30 15:10, AstroMike wrote:
I wish people would start looking at Clavius (http://www.clavius.org) more than Sibrel's crap.



Who doesn't?

The (Laughing at the rediculous horror of all this) Incubus

_________________
"Give a man a fire, and he's warm for a night. But set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Terry Pratchett

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Incubus on 2002-03-30 20:28 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-31, 01:11 AM
I have emailed them, asking if I can rebut. We'll see what happens.

Jigsaw
2002-Mar-31, 02:03 AM
You can back up the URL and put in different issue numbers and look at some of their other stuff. Very strange and electic. It runs the gamut from the paranormal to the bondage sex story.

List of articles for Issue 40.
http://www.victorthorn.com/babel/issue40/

For example. Didja know they've discovered Atlantis off the coast of Cuba?
http://www.victorthorn.com/babel/issue40/atlantis.html

I can't get a handle on how they decide what to include--I'm guessing it's just stuff that Victor Thorn stumbles across while surfing the Internet and thinks is interesting.

Writer's profiles. Lisa Guliani. She's apparently not a "paranormal" specialist, which is what I was wondering.

http://www.victorthorn.com/babel/profiles.html

I am 35 years old, hailing originally from Brooklyn, New York. Currently, I live in the Northwoods of Wisconsin, where I am continually inspired by the wealth of beauty in my surroundings. I have been writing for 25 years, and am a published freelance writer and poet in Minnesota and Wisconsin. I love the infinite forms of the language of poetry, and the often subtle and not-so-subtle ways the written word can give shape and form to an emotion. I love the power of the written word. My work has appeared in several online literary magazines, such as Seeker Magazine, Poetic Reflections, and The Big Lick Literary Review, based in Roanoke, Va. I write in different genres, including children's literature, fiction, and non-fiction, as well as comedic pieces. If interested, one may read my poems at Paramount Poetry, where I have my own page of original work.
She's a serious LIT-rachoor person. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

jagster
2002-Mar-31, 02:03 PM
Jigsaw -
I wouldn't call it Atlantis, but I have read a few things about this and it seems like there just may be something down there. Clearer pictures are supposed to be forthcoming so I am suspending judgement until then.

Sorry BA...way off topic but I couldn't resist.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-31, 05:34 PM
Well, I got a reply back from the author of the article. I frown on publishing personal email, so I'll just say that she is not about to let me publish a rebuttal of her statement. Of course, she accused me of being on the government payroll, and of being a disinformation agent.

Sigh.

Andrew
2002-Mar-31, 06:00 PM
I think Sibrel is a disinformation agent. Not sure if he's on any government's payroll though. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

JayUtah
2002-Mar-31, 06:14 PM
"The power of science compels you!"

It's always interesting to hear these authors talk about the suppression of ideas and the dangers of rigidly guided thought, and then refuse to give an equal hearing to the other side of the debate. Of course the propagandist's best tool has always been to convey the notion that the other side is the propaganda. Sure, they want us to have an open mind, but only open enough to accept their lame ideas.

Many journalists don't see the harm in giving mainstream air time and print space to wackos like Sibrel. After all, they're only reporting what someone else has researched and published. That's "newsworthy" isn't it? They don't seem to realize that they're spreading misinformation and contributing to the "dumbing down" of America culture. But so long as they get their front page story or their ratings, they think they've served the public interest. According to their metric, they've given the public what they want to see and read.

The cure for bad speech is more speech. Sibrel is obviously out shopping for people who will get his message out without costing him anything. We simply have to be just as prolific. It has to be just as easy to pick up a magazine and read something critical of the hoax theories.

We all need to write letters to the editor of this magazine and express our opinion on the article in question.

The Incubus
2002-Mar-31, 06:14 PM
On 2002-03-31 12:34, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
Well, I got a reply back from the author of the article. I frown on publishing personal email, so I'll just say that she is not about to let me publish a rebuttal of her statement. Of course, she accused me of being on the government payroll, and of being a disinformation agent.

Sigh.



Raise your hand if you saw that one coming.

Why does this woman's seeming inability to even look for (or listen to) other viewpoints on this whole thing frighten me?

*sigh*

The Incubus

PS. That reminds me, does anyone have a link to that article debunking Bart Sibrel's video? I know it was posted here at least once, and I'd like to read it again.
_________________
"Give a man a fire, and he's warm for a night. But set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Terry Pratchett

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Incubus on 2002-03-31 13:18 ]</font>

AstroMike
2002-Mar-31, 06:29 PM
On 2002-03-31 13:14, The Incubus wrote:
PS. That reminds me, does anyone have a link to that article debunking Bart Sibrel's video? I know it was posted here at least once, and I'd like to read it again.

Is it this one (http://www.business.uab.edu/cache/this_conspiracy_is_a_conspiracy.htm)?

The Incubus
2002-Mar-31, 06:30 PM
Is it this one?



Yup.

Danke schön =-)

The Incubus

Kaptain K
2002-Mar-31, 07:09 PM
It has to be just as easy to pick up a magazine and read something critical of the hoax theories.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. The "sensational press" wants strories that are -well- sensational. In their eyes, "hey, we really did go to the moon" just doesn't rank with "Your gummint lied to you".

We all need to write letters to the editor of this magazine and express our opinion on the article in question.
Did that as soon as I finished the article.

Jim
2002-Mar-31, 07:39 PM
On 2002-03-31 12:34, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
Well, I got a reply back from the author of the article. ... she accused me of being on the government payroll ...

I told you, it's that flippin' hat!

What's interesting to me is how someone with absolutely no formal (or, apparently, informal) training in science in general or astronomy in particular thinks she is qualified to voice an unresearched opinion on a scientific subject. It seems that she believes common sense is enough to qualify her.

Of course, "common sense" says the earth is flat and the sun and planets rotate around it.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-31, 08:16 PM
I urge people to go ahead and write the author of that article (the email is on the article itself), but I also strongly request that you be as polite as possible. Nothing will shut down a reasoned discussion like anger. She said she had already received several nasty messages from people (shocking, eh). If you are sarcastic or impolite, she is far less likely to listen to you. Leave the insults and sarcasm for people like Rene.

johnwitts
2002-Mar-31, 08:49 PM
How do we contact her? Is there an E-mail address? I couldn't find one. If you could post it here I'd be grateful. I promise to be nice. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-31, 09:42 PM
At the bottom of the story is a red menu bar. Click on "Contact Us".

johnwitts
2002-Mar-31, 09:51 PM
Ah! Obviously too simple for me! I expect stuff like this to be complicated! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

David Hall
2002-Apr-01, 02:31 AM
I noticed that whole idea of this "magazine" is to be a platform for people to say whatever they want. It actively solicits material from the general public, so I suppose anyone with any kind of idea or beef can write something and possibly get it in print there.

http://www.victorthorn.com/babel/intro.html

So BA, I don't think you really need to go after this lady directly, just submit a more general refutation directly to the magazine. As long as you don't attack her directly, what's she going to do?

PS: Has anyone else considered the idea that this might be Sibrel himself under a pen-name?

AstroMike
2002-Apr-01, 02:44 AM
On 2002-03-31 21:31, David Hall wrote:
PS: Has anyone else considered the idea that this might be Sibrel himself under a pen-name?

Hmm. Could be! Two reviewers at Amazon here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/dvd/B000059MCV/customer-reviews/ref=ed_oe_dvd/104-3257760-5567137) have said that Sibrel himself wrote two of the customer reviews, and he probably wrote the "WHY THE WAR OF WORDS?" one.

BTW, those two reviews got removed! I wonder why. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Apr-01, 01:20 PM
On 2002-03-31 13:14, JayUtah wrote:
"The power of science compels you!"

And, with that, congratulations Jay on completing your degree with a record high SNR. I hope these celebratory fireworks (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020331.html) don't cause a flurry of hoax posts.

Jim
2002-Apr-01, 03:56 PM
On 2002-03-31 21:31, David Hall wrote:
I noticed that whole idea of this "magazine" is to be a platform for people to say whatever they want. It actively solicits material from the general public...

So BA, ... just submit a more general refutation directly to the magazine. As long as you don't attack her directly, what's she going to do?


Yeah, Phil, submit. Maybe they'll put you between "Atlantis" and "Bondage Sex". /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

I did some poking around on the Babel site (I was thinking of apologizing for this, but isn't reasearch what we should do before posting an opinion?) and ran across some interesting tidbits:

1. Apparently, Babel Magazine is a joint venture between Scott Thorn and Lisa G. This is why Phil's email to the site got a direct response from her. And why nothing he submits to Babel will ever be "published" by them.

2. Lisa is a regular contributer to Babel. (See the conclusion to 1 above.)

3. Babel has a Message Board, to which Lisa posts. In one message she recommends another site, http://www.jimmarrs.com, a conspiracy theorist's dream. (You'll be happy to know the interstellar quarantine of earth has been lifted.) This is an indication of her general mindset.

4. In response to an angry would-be-contributer, Scott and Lisa posted this reply:
Y'see, here at Babel we're very inclusive, as opposed to exclusive. We want all types of voices to be heard. What you should have done was first contact us with what you're doing, and I'm sure we would have actually ran (sic) your message as a PIECE in an upcoming issue...

Ri-i-i-ight.

Jigsaw
2002-Apr-02, 01:35 AM
"...but now that we know that you're The Enemy, and you're all out to get us, and you're on the government's payroll to boot, wild horses couldn't make us run your piece", is that it?

Yeesh. :: big rolleyes ::

Art Vandelay
2002-Apr-02, 02:38 PM
Just read that article by Lisa G. Based on this, I think any schools she might have graduated from should revoke her degrees. She obviously learned nothing worthwhile.

Art

DaveC
2002-Apr-02, 02:42 PM
Same old tired stuff in Guliani's article. Although my better judgment kept warning me that I should ignore it, in the end I couldn't resist sending the following email to Babel:

"Re: Lunar Lies: A Craterful of Bull**** and Why No One Went To The Moon

After reading this article by Lisa Guliani I conclude that your magazine is appropriately named:

Oxford Dictionary: babel - confused noise

or perhaps you mean: Babble - talk in an incoherent or inarticulate manner; chatter irrelevantly (from the same dictionary).

While I applaud the effort to stir controversy and prompt a discussion of the Apollo missions, I find it hard to believe that anyone who has spent any time at all analyzing the Apollo record could conclude there was a hoax. The sheer impossibility of keeping such a conspiracy hidden for 33 years is enough on its own to prove there was no hoax. As Mailer said in the quote used at the start of the article: "... Indeed, conceive of the genius of such a conspiracy. It would be men mightier, more trustworthy and more resourceful than any thing in this century or the ones before." Doesn't this suggest that man has never demonstrated the ability to pull off such a deception?

Mailer could be wrong, of course, but the technical and scientific evidence that the six lunar landings did occur is overwhelming. One need only study the video and film records with only the barest knowledge of physics and filmmaking to realize: that they were made in a 1/6 g vacuum, and that they could not have been staged. Bart Sibrel's film clip, even if his misinterpretation of the material weren't so obvious, is a pretty meagre argument to array against all the other evidence that the landings occurred.

In short, Ms Guliani's article is a compendium of arguments that rest on a foundation of ignorance. Too bad she didn't do even a modicum of research before she fell for Sibrel's pitch. Maybe truth is less important to Babel than controversy."

Did anyone else succumb to the temptation to write to Babel?

(edited to correct typos)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-04-02 15:38 ]</font>

SpacedOut
2002-Apr-02, 03:50 PM
I thought about it but decided it was much like teaching a pig to sing – frustrates you and just gets the pig mad.

Ms. Guliani is obviously convinced the government is not only capable of lying to us about Apollo for the past 33 years, but does it all the time on any number of subjects. Once she got hold of Sibrel's video, she had all the proof she’d ever need to confirm her core beliefs.

DaveC
2002-Apr-02, 04:37 PM
Well, she did take the time to respond with a page of insults. She was quite offended that I characterized "a woman I have never met as ignorant" and made the point that her article wasn't intended to be a scientific treatise. (Gee, I wouldn't have known that!)

Anyway, if an angry reaction is the first indication that an argument is hitting close to home, I must have scored a bullseye.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Apr-02, 04:46 PM
Dave, can you put a link here please? I'd like to read that page.

DJ
2002-Apr-02, 04:49 PM
It felt like I was reading something for a high school book report or possibly high school newspaper.

Of course, when I was in high school, we didn't watch videos and then summarize them in block grammar. We did silly stuff: go to the library and find 15 references -- all different authors. We explored counter theories, even if counter-intuitive to our own thoughts. Of course, I was in high school during the age of Betamax, so maybe that was the reason.

DJ

DaveC
2002-Apr-02, 04:56 PM
BA:
I'll post the whole thing here if she gives me permission, but check your inbox.

Art Vandelay
2002-Apr-02, 05:05 PM
On 2002-04-02 11:49, DJ wrote:
It felt like I was reading something for a high school book report or possibly high school newspaper.

Of course, when I was in high school, we didn't watch videos and then summarize them in block grammar. We did silly stuff: go to the library and find 15 references -- all different authors. We explored counter theories, even if counter-intuitive to our own thoughts. Of course, I was in high school during the age of Betamax, so maybe that was the reason.

DJ


Hey, that's the same feeling I had too...it had that 9th grade feel to it. Actually, most high school students would probably do a better job. How many legitimate writers use the word "bullsh*t" in the titles of their articles anyway?

DaveC
2002-Apr-02, 05:24 PM
Here's my second note to Ms Guliani in response to her page of ranting:

"Lisa:

I see you have applied the same level of analysis to my email that you apparently applied to the Apollo record. Sorry if I offended you by saying the arguments came from a foundation of ignorance - if you choose to characterize that as name calling, that's your prerrogative. Your own statement that: "By the way, my moon piece was not intended to be a scientific thesis" demonstrates either an ignorance of the science necessary to intelligently discuss a scientific undertaking or a "misguided" belief that you can somehow refute scientific evidence with some philosophical dogma.

You are entitled to your belief in faked lunar missions, you can even throw another page of insults at me because I don't share that belief. But someone who publishes the kind of poorly written, factually incorrect drivel contained in your article should have more maturity and grace when called to task by a reader. Insulting me and my "buddies at BadAstronomy" doesn't make your work any more credible. What it shows is a spoiled brat who probably needs a new hobby more than I do.

Have a good day, kid - and lighten up."

The words and phrases in quotes came from her epistle. The reference to a new hobby is from her suggestion to me.
Let's see what happens next!

DJ
2002-Apr-02, 05:58 PM
Hey, that's the same feeling I had too...it had that 9th grade feel to it. Actually, most high school students would probably do a better job. How many legitimate writers use the word "bullsh*t" in the titles of their articles anyway?


Well, no writers who get published. However, I'm sure words like those you point out appear often on notes one may write, for example on their lists "Guys I'd like to Date", "Classes that Suck", etc.


But, to be balanced, I'm glad she's taken an interest. Who knows, she may continue to read further, and blossom into a space researcher. You just never know with kids these days. And in all fairness, this is a tough crowd on here. Heck, we debate about everything on this board. (Which is why I really like it.)

By the way, Art, you're in the Import/Export business aren't you? I heard you wanted to move to just exporting, but hadn't made up your mind yet.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJ on 2002-04-02 12:59 ]</font>

Art Vandelay
2002-Apr-02, 06:06 PM
By the way, Art, you're in the Import/Export business aren't you? I heard you wanted to move to just exporting, but hadn't made up your mind yet.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJ on 2002-04-02 12:59 ]</font>


I am in that business now. I used to be an architect however. By the way, did you see the posting on the Babel message board about the moon hoax topic? It's new today.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Art Vandelay on 2002-04-02 13:08 ]</font>

SpacedOut
2002-Apr-02, 06:42 PM
Just out of curiosity I went to Babel’s message board to read the thread on the Apollo Hoax Piece – DaveC’s post is the last .

What really astonished me was the post immediately prior to DaveC’s – Calling Ms. Guliani ‘... one of Babel’s best writers. She takes time to research material ...' etc. I guess research is now defined as watching one video and believing it!

If she’s one of the best, I’m very glad I haven’t spent the time to read any other articles on the site!

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Apr-02, 07:04 PM
Another friendly note from the moderator here:

Please try not to post personal attacks here. It certainly within the realm of this forum to discuss the research techniques (or lack thereof) of a reporter, but please do not post personal emails without permission or resort to ad hominem attacks.

I understand that an article like the one on Babel speaks volumes about the writer, but I do not want anything impolite here.

DaveC
2002-Apr-02, 07:19 PM
Thanks for the friendly reminder, BA. I'll make sure I am careful about what I say on this board. Ms. Guliani wrote an opinion piece - an opinion many of us here don't share, but she is entitled to an opinion nevertheless. Let's see if she continues her private debate with me.

AstroMike
2002-Apr-02, 07:25 PM
Hey DaveC. If you didn't notice, yours, ToSeek's, and my message (which I just posted) all got deleted! In fact entire thread got removed.

DaveC
2002-Apr-02, 07:46 PM
So the notice board at Babel IS just like Aulis. Censorship!! Bah!

It's especially ironic that a supposedly free thinking publication like Babel does exactly what it decries in the establishment when subjected to opposing views. It's OK to criticize the government, but don't you dare criticize the critic - you will be censored or banished!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-04-02 14:51 ]</font>

Art Vandelay
2002-Apr-02, 07:49 PM
Looks like the Davey Jones Apollo thread was a little too much for the Babel Board. He must have hurt their feelings : (

DaveC
2002-Apr-02, 07:52 PM
I'm gonna repost my previous message that got deleted and see what happens.

(Added by edit)
Well here's what happened when I tried to repost my message:

"You or someone from your network has been banned from posting messages to this board."

WOW! Even at JFK it took me three posts to get banned. I'll try it from my home email address.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-04-02 15:01 ]</font>

odysseus0101
2002-Apr-02, 08:11 PM
On 2002-04-02 14:52, DaveC wrote:
I'm gonna repost my previous message that got deleted and see what happens.

(Added by edit)
Well here's what happened when I tried to repost my message:

"You or someone from your network has been banned from posting messages to this board."

WOW! Even at JFK it took me three posts to get banned. I'll try it from my home email address.


Does anybody remember who it was who said that censorship is humanity's most basic instinct, followed by sex as a distant second?

I went over to the board in question. Yikes. Is there a way I can set up SETI@Home to scan it and search for signals from intelligent life?

DaveC
2002-Apr-02, 08:18 PM
Hey odysseus0101 - copy my message from the top of this page (starting at the sentence "While I applaud ----") and see if you can get it posted there. It'll be interesting to see how long it takes them to delete it.

AstroMike
2002-Apr-02, 08:43 PM
Since I probably won't get this posted at Babel, I'll post it here.

This radiation is lethal

Not as lethal as Sibrel likes you to believe.

It can penetrate any spacecraft or space suit - as well as the human skull.

If this was true, then no TV satellite that orbits the Earth would ever work.

The particle radiation in the Van Allen belts can easily be stopped by centimeters of polyethylene shielding, not meters of lead.

In addition, the radioactive charges emitted by these "belts" can penetrate a person's retinas behind closed eyelids

They're not radioactive. The radiation in the Van Allen belts is not same as X-rays or gamma rays. It's particle radiation. X-rays are wave radiation.

Think about that.

What's to think about? That you and Sibrel understand almost nothing about radiation.

For astronauts to survive this type of solar radiation

Van Allen belt radiation is not a type of solar radiation.

their spacecraft would need a solid lead barrier around the exterior

No, it wouldn't.

1/8 inch of aluminum shielding would absolutely not suffice as protection from the dangerous charges.

Yes, it would.

Unfortunately, the added tonnage of solid lead poses a most formidable problem for a space mission to the moon.

A tonnage of lead is not needed.

it's been said that the Soviets had a 5 - 1 advantage over the U.S. in missile technology and strategic capability.

It's been said only by Sibrel.

the Soviets NEVER once sent a human through the Van Allen "belts".

But they were going to. It was never an insurmountable obstacle.

Why? Because it apparently couldn't be done

No, because the Soviets did not have the right rocket technology to go the Moon in the first place.

I'll leave at there. There's plenty more for all of you to debunk.

DaveC
2002-Apr-02, 09:00 PM
I think you should try to post it there, AstroMike. Maybe it's just me they don't like, and they'll have no problem with posts by someone else. When I originally posted, it appeared immediately. Let's see if they've introduced a screening process like Aulis has.

AstroMike
2002-Apr-02, 09:40 PM
On 2002-04-02 16:00, DaveC wrote:
I think you should try to post it there, AstroMike. Maybe it's just me they don't like, and they'll have no problem with posts by someone else. When I originally posted, it appeared immediately. Let's see if they've introduced a screening process like Aulis has.


I can't post anything there. I got banned!

_________________
"The contemplation of celestial things will make man both speak and think more sublimely and magnificently when he descends to human affairs." -Marcus Cicero

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-04-02 17:37 ]</font>

johnwitts
2002-Apr-02, 10:13 PM
I just posted this...

Anyone wishing to have a discussion about the article on the Moon Hoax can do so at

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=904&forum=3&start=0

It appears that discussions on the subject here have been deleted, in direct opposition to the publishers notion of wanting to know the truth and for the truth not to be censored.

It's probably past their bedtime, so I'm taking bets as to how long this post at Babble will last.

johnwitts
2002-Apr-02, 10:40 PM
Don't bother, it's gone already. And I've been banned. BooHoo.

johnwitts
2002-Apr-02, 10:46 PM
So I sent them this message...

How come I got banned for one post? Hardly the act of those who are trying to reveal the truth, rather than suppress it. I'm not impressed.

John

Let's see if I get anything back.

Art Vandelay
2002-Apr-02, 10:55 PM
I gave the Babel board one more shot but i bet the posting gets deleted pronto!

johnwitts
2002-Apr-02, 11:07 PM
I read it. Don't think it'll stay long.

AstroMike
2002-Apr-02, 11:44 PM
It's gone already.

Peter B
2002-Apr-03, 12:15 AM
I suppose you could always point them at Hoagland. Then sit back and watch as the two of them trade conspiracies.

Of course, the problem with this is that they may end up supporting each other's conspiracies, even if they're mutually exclusive. (Or at least, this is what a colleague in the anti-alt-med field found - three people with mutually exclusive theories on the cause of cancer supported each other against his criticisms.)

odysseus0101
2002-Apr-03, 12:46 AM
I got banned, too. I feel that I am in excellent company.

Jigsaw
2002-Apr-03, 01:32 AM
[mom voice]

Well, not meaning to be a spoilsport or anything--you guys seem to be having such a good time--but I feel like I ought to point out that it is "their" message board, and "their" website, and just because they're on the Internet doesn't mean they have any kind of responsibility to post other people's rebuttals to their POV, or to refrain from practicing censorship.

If I had a web page with a guestbook, and my web page was devoted to the fact that the moon landings never happened, and people kept visiting my web page and posting "Oh, yeah?" rebuttals in my nice guestbook, I'd probably delete them, too.

Especially if it started to look like they all knew each other, and were egging each other on, "Hey, go *here* and see if you can post in her guestbook...Tee hee, she deleted it...hey, let's get Mikey, see if she deletes him, too..."

IMO you're bordering perilously close on harassment here, guys. And giving the Bad Astronomy MB a bad reputation, to boot. How can you expect them to listen to the BA's common sense when members of his MB keep posting "oh, yeah?" rebuttals.

Give it a rest, guys, huh? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

[/mom voice]

JayUtah
2002-Apr-03, 03:33 AM
I feel like I ought to point out that it is "their" message board, and "their" website

A good point, but the hypocrisy of urging open-mindedness and then suppressing contrary opinions isn't a very honorable way of running a web site. Rather than say they provide a platform for a variety of opinions, better to say they provide one for only one kind of opinion.

IMO you're bordering perilously close on harassment here, guys.

Hardly. The freedom of speech carries the responsbility of dealing with the repercussions of one's speech. If you say something objectionable then you're going to get objections. Whether from an individual or a group makes no difference. The freedom to say absurd things does not insulate one from the consequences of saying absurd things.

Peter B
2002-Apr-03, 04:23 AM
Still, it's interesting to compare the Babel BB with this one. See how many people have viewed the various threads on each BB.

In one sense, groups like Babel aren't a serious problem because so few people visit them.

DaveC
2002-Apr-03, 12:39 PM
It's a marginalized publication that has just further marginalized itself through its schizophrenic behaviour. I don't think they are used to having their criticisms criticized by any of the 12 regular readers, so they didn't know how to behave when someone took them on. Ms. Guliani's strident email to me made it clear how unprepared they are to handle contrary points of view.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-03, 02:14 PM
Most folks with a highly polemical bent and strongly held opinions don't respond well to criticism. The same mindset prevails in the more fundamental adherents to religion.

I believe it's fundamentally dishonest to preach free speech and denounce the supposed government control of information, and then engage in censorship. "We aren't being told everything," they say in hushed tones. And then when someone tries to use their forum to "tell everything", they're suppressed and forced to find a different audience. Dishonest. Apparently it's not the control of information (in the abstract) that's so heinous, it's government's control of information. And of course there's no evidence that the government is hiding significant Apollo findings or facts regarding Apollo and its authenticity. So it's all a red herring. The only people controlling information about Apollo are the anti-government nuts.

Valiant Dancer
2002-Apr-03, 03:11 PM
On 2002-04-02 15:43, AstroMike wrote:

Why? Because it apparently couldn't be done

No, because the Soviets did not have the right rocket technology to go the Moon in the first place.

I'll leave at there. There's plenty more for all of you to debunk.



I had to add the devastating effect the Nedelin disaster had on the Soviet missile program.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/r16_disaster.html

Valiant Dancer
2002-Apr-03, 03:26 PM
I'm gonna have to write a hundred times, "I will not respond to such idiocy. Clavius has been deemed "associated with the BadAstronomy website" and therefore invalid. She made several technical errors while discounting the loss of scientific minds.

Once more into the breach.

Valiant Dancer
2002-Apr-03, 03:33 PM
With permission from Ms. Guliani, an e-mailed follow up response.

"by the way, your BadAstronomy message board is pretty interesting. I
especially dig your latest post there.
Incidentally, our Message Board at Babel is intended for use by Babel writers
- we do not have anything on the site encouraging other groups to post
messages there. It is simply for the use of our writers and those receiving
our newsletter, but not intended for mean-spirited and malicious content or
nasty argumentative debates intended to incite others.

You may pass this along to your buddies at BadAstronomy with my blessings.

Lisa Guliani"

The encapsulated quotes represents the full text of the message recieved with no editing what-so-ever.

ToSeek
2002-Apr-03, 03:49 PM
On 2002-04-03 10:33, Valiant Dancer wrote:
"Incidentally, our Message Board at Babel is intended for use by Babel writers
- we do not have anything on the site encouraging other groups to post
messages there. "


Um, isn't the whole point of having a message board to allow external parties to post? If you're just going to have your own people post, what's the point of having a message board at all?

JayUtah
2002-Apr-03, 03:55 PM
Clavius has been deemed "associated with the BadAstronomy website" and therefore invalid.

I just sent them a message authoritatively denying any such association. The B.A. reads my site and I read his. This is not an "association" according to any definition I understand.

Interesting, however, that mere association "invalidates" the contents of a web site. Obviously to the Babel folks, the debate has nothing to do with what one knows or what arguments one makes -- it has only to do with who one is or into what group he can be pigeonholed.

Valiant Dancer
2002-Apr-03, 04:00 PM
On 2002-04-03 10:49, ToSeek wrote:


On 2002-04-03 10:33, Valiant Dancer wrote:
"Incidentally, our Message Board at Babel is intended for use by Babel writers
- we do not have anything on the site encouraging other groups to post
messages there. "


Um, isn't the whole point of having a message board to allow external parties to post? If you're just going to have your own people post, what's the point of having a message board at all?




I don't ask anymore. Logic like this astounds me at times. Discounting the creative effects of individuals who are deeply entrenched in a program. Hey, Phil, if a fire killed 92 of the Astronomers and managers and seriously injured 33 wouldn't that seriously impact your research?
Countering with the basic "silence killings" of astronauts and paranoid thoughts of deaths in other dangerous fields as evidence of a cover-up conspiracy. The government couldn't cover up a hummer in the oval office involving only the knowledge of three people, how are you gonna keep tens of thousands quiet for nearly four decades? Add to that a severe persecution complex due to negative feedback to her article. Couldn't possibly be due to the facts she presented being wrong.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-03, 04:04 PM
- we do not have anything on the site encouraging other groups to post
messages there.

I would call a link on their home page advertising a "bulletin board", complete with flashy "new" icon, just such an invitation. If they wish to have a private message exchange for their authors, there are ways to do that without exposing it to the public.

To advertise a publicly accessible bulletin board with no special instructions or printed limitations is indeed an encouragement for outside parties to post.

but not intended for mean-spirited and malicious content or nasty argumentative debates intended to incite others.

No, obviously that's the aim of their articles, not the bulletin board. And since they will entertain no articles disputing their prior findings, that just about wraps it up for their misleading professions to allow a voice for all.

Obviously the bulletin board is being retrospectively defined as an "insider only" board because Ms. Guliani has discovered that there are consequences to making absurd public statements. Welcome to journalism, Ms. Guliani.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-03, 04:21 PM
Babel's home page advertises Votescam: The Stealing of America. This was written by James Collier, who also produced the video Was It Only a Paper Moon?. Collier is the one who can't figure out how the LRV could possibly have fit on/in the LM, despite dozens of pictures and EVA video of its deployment. He's also the one who measured a dummy hatch on an LM cockpit simulator and then categorically declared that the hatches on the flight spacecraft would not accommodate the PLSS.

Collier's reaction to his critics closely mimics Ms. Guliani's. Apparently what these authors lack in research and reason they make up for in bluster and rhetoric. Annoying, I know, but not worth the effort. These people ultimately end up being their own worst enemies.

DaveC
2002-Apr-03, 04:37 PM
"but not intended for mean-spirited and malicious content or nasty argumentative debates intended to incite others."

No, I guess THAT kind of material is reserved for the magazine itself, but only when it is in line with the editorial policy of Babel.
What kind of thought process would lead an organization to create a public bulletin board and then ban its use by others? Is it just this Apollo topic that is restricted to the magazine's writers? Could someone, for example, add something to the "Hitler's Birthday Bash" thread if not a contributor to the magazine?
Gee, even the bad old gummint lets anyone say what they want - even those who aren't contributors. Who's zoomin' who??

Art Vandelay
2002-Apr-03, 05:01 PM
I think I know what the situation with Babel is...The entire online magazine (not just the message board) is only meant for the Babel writers themselves to peruse. The web site itself was supposed to be secret but somehow it's existence was leaked to the general public. Why would they proudly display a link to the private message board right on the main index otherwise?

Valiant Dancer
2002-Apr-03, 05:19 PM
On 2002-04-03 12:01, Art Vandelay wrote:
I think I know what the situation with Babel is...The entire online magazine (not just the message board) is only meant for the Babel writers themselves to peruse. The web site itself was supposed to be secret but somehow it's existence was leaked to the general public. Why would they proudly display a link to the private message board right on the main index otherwise?



Another win for the ESE (Evil Skeptic Empire). WoooHoooo!!!!

Jim
2002-Apr-03, 05:26 PM
Does anyone else get the feeling that Babel has gotten more traffic over the last few days than for any time since its inception?

DJ
2002-Apr-03, 05:27 PM
I think we should all solemnly swear to not force the BA to lock this thread.

so..... shhh! The Apollo thingy can be our secret.

DaveC
2002-Apr-03, 06:05 PM
" Does anyone else get the feeling that Babel has gotten more traffic over the last few days than for any time since its inception?"

Ya - here's what Ms. Guliani said to me:

"thank you for joining my newest fan club---

Every day this week, I have had the amusement of being serenaded by those
like yourself ----in my inbox."

I took out the insulting stuff.

johnwitts
2002-Apr-03, 09:21 PM
Anyone brave enough to submit an article?

Peter B
2002-Apr-03, 09:44 PM
Well, I'm in good company, it seems.

I posted to their BB as well. Only I asked an innocent question on factual correctness, without making any statement about what I believed.

It's gone now...

ToSeek
2002-Apr-03, 10:04 PM
On 2002-04-03 16:44, Peter B wrote:
Well, I'm in good company, it seems.

I posted to their BB as well. Only I asked an innocent question on factual correctness, without making any statement about what I believed.

It's gone now...


Welcome to the B.O.B. (Banned On Babel) Club.

ToSeek
Proud B.O.B. member since April 1,2002.

AstroMike
2002-Apr-03, 10:17 PM
On 2002-04-03 16:44, Peter B wrote:
Well, I'm in good company, it seems.

I posted to their BB as well. Only I asked an innocent question on factual correctness, without making any statement about what I believed.

It's gone now...


Yep. Welcome to the B.O.B Club, Peter. I'm member #3. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Art Vandelay
2002-Apr-03, 11:17 PM
I too suffered Babel banning bigtime /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

Jim
2002-Apr-03, 11:18 PM
On 2002-04-03 16:21, johnwitts wrote:
Anyone brave enough to submit an article?


Actually, I've been toying with an article on how the entire "We Never Went to the Moon" story really is a hoax... perpetrated by NASA itself.

In an effort to force additional funding out of Congress, NASA hired Bill Kaysing (You don't really believe he quit Rocketdyne, do you? He's on their "stealth" payroll... has been for years.) to put forth the Apollo Hoax. The idea was to get Congress so upset that they would force NASA to revive the Apollo program just to prove it true, and that Congress had not been tricked.

This is why NASA so seldom "defends" itself. It would be counter-productive, so they speak out just often enough to look "threatened."

Seems just up Babel's alley... a government conspiracy to hide a government coverup of a government hoax to divert attention from the truth.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Apr-03, 11:19 PM
I can neither confirm nor deny this theory.

Chip
2002-Apr-03, 11:55 PM
On 2002-04-03 16:44, Peter B wrote:
Well, I'm in good company, it seems.

I posted to their BB as well. Only I asked an innocent question on factual correctness, without making any statement about what I believed.

It's gone now...


Congratulations on joining the Babel Banned Society. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif
It may be tempting to post logical, intelligent questions on the Babel BB, but it soon becomes ridiculous, as they will always ignore or delete proof or explanations that deflate their goofy conspiratorial views. Must...then...resist...temptation...to...simply... direct...the HB'rs...here (http://gbg.bonet.se/ivil/you.html)! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Chip

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-04-03 19:03 ]</font>

Valiant Dancer
2002-Apr-04, 12:43 PM
On 2002-04-03 18:19, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
I can neither confirm nor deny this theory.


There you have it. The cover up of the coverup. This from a person whom Babel calls a government thug. Therefore Kaysing is a GOVERNMENT PLANT!!!!!!!! (Ficus, I think.) He perpetuates the hoax to force government appropriations back to NASA!!!

(Toungue firmly in cheek.)

DaveC
2002-Apr-04, 02:12 PM
I don't know whether to feel bad or delighted that I started this charade with Babel and got all you BA "associates" banned.

Naw - I feel fine. We smoked out their paranoia, their thin skin and their schizophrenia all at once. I think I'll cancel my subscription and pull out all my company's advertising!

JayUtah
2002-Apr-04, 02:51 PM
I received an e-mail from Ms. Guliani. She apparently believes this site is "associated" with Clavius (or vice versa, association is typicaly reflexive, isn't it?) simply because people who post here refer to Clavius by name. Well, in fact, I don't consult the Bad Astronomer on what goes into Clavius, and he doesn't consult with me about what goes here.

And apparently she views our scientific deconstruction of her article as mere "coffee clutch" gossip. Methinks that Ms. Guliani is in over her head scientifically. I will be happy to dispassionately debate the facts and allegations of fact in her article, but since she does not seem very comfortable having her boat rocked I suspect my invitation is in vain.

The Babel folks seem to have gone to great lengths to insulate themselves from any contrary opinions, so I say we oblige them and ignore them.

DaveC
2002-Apr-04, 02:56 PM
"I say we oblige them and ignore them."

I'm with you, Jay. We've had our fun - I suspect a lot more than Ms. Guliani has had in the past week. Time to find some new fish for the barrel.

Thumper
2002-Apr-04, 04:43 PM
After I read the article (term loosely applied) in question, I too wanted to respond in some way. But I knew that many of you had much more technical knowledge and insite to make much better responses. Being banned and stereotyped by just asking people to back up their "facts" or show their research speaks volumes. You folks here have taught me so much in just the short time I've been reading. I'm grateful for the brief time I can sneak away and peruse.

Even if many of the topics often go over my head (way over), the logical concepts, the building of theories and assumptions on facts and observations, and above all, the professional nature in which you conduct youselves has been completely enlightening. There's a thread over on General Astronomy called Idle Moon Math where 4 or 5 guys have been hammering on each other for days. It's clear that several of them will never see eye to eye on the topic and are at opposite extremes. But that hasn't stopped one from helping the other on his html so that he might better be able to illustrate his points. Argueing doesn't have to be mean. It's an exchange of information and ideas forcing one to defend their position and take a close look at they got there.

It may seem like the only thing we've done here is given Babel more free publicity. But you've taken something made out of pure ignorance, exposed it for what is was and in the process, educated a few more people. Thanks for taking valuable time to be a part of this. I truely appreciate it.