Some questions I posed on another forum...

[sts60]

What is the agenda of all the people here who seem to lack individuality and speak with virtually one voice? Exactly what sort of place is this? Let's get a few things straight.

You have come on this board, posting opinions (based partly on Collier's allegations) that questioned significant parts of the Apollo record. Most of us hang out here because we are interested in space and find the Apollo program a pretty amazing accomplishment. Many of us happen to be quite knowledgeable in fields directly relevant to examining the Apollo record.

Since the regulars here have seen just about every Apollo-denier allegation, and seen them all debunked repeatedly, and we like space exploration, what sort of response do you expect most of us to make?

And why, exactly, do you say we "lack individuality" and "speak with one voice"? Our arguments overlap because most of us are familiar with HB claims and rebuttals. So? I reject your "individuality" argument. I'm my own person, and I speak for myself. More importantly, I think for myself - which is exactly what people like Rene, Sibrel, and Collier don't want people to do. The fact that Collier is dead doesn't mean I can't call a spade a spade.


What is this "HB" appelation which I am repeatedly called? Hoax Believer - one who believes Apollo was somehow faked.


Where did I say that the moon landings were a hoax?
You came on with a similar line of argument as some hardcore HBers who've been here before. You indicated disbelief in significant parts of the Apollo record. You sounded a lot like an HB.


I had questions about aspects of it, many of which - but not all - have been satisfactorily addressed. To your credit, you have acknowledged several of the explanations offered. It sounds like you still doubt that astronauts could have spoken like they did on the Moon (Gran Prix), though that is a subjective judgment; many of us have offered rebuttals based on acquaintances with astronauts, test pilots, or other professionals who routinely deal in demanding situations.


If it is too much trouble for you to continue to do so without being obnoxious, fine, suit yourselves.Taking that high-handed approach won't work. Several people, myself included, have reacted strongly to your statements regarding 9/11 and the like. But, as I said, I'm not returning to that topic here. This is an astronomy and space board, and it is not a suitable topic - no matter who brought it up. But if you want to keep pitching on Apollo, you need to drop the confrontational attitude (to be fair, so do some other people).


Ong the Skeptical (Hey, like when has the governemnt ever told the truth about ANYTHING!?)" Herein lies your problem. You seem predisposed to disbelieve the official version of any great event or accomplishment. Reflexive disbelief is not skepticism, nor is it a useful guide for sorting out truth from falsehood. Sure, I can think of several falsehoods propagated by, for example, the current administration. Do I also disbelieve the government when it tells me that two U.S. soldiers were recently killed in a mortar attack (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/22/sprj.nirq.main/index.html)? Do I disbelieve the Agriculture Dept. when it tells me how many tons of oranges were harvested last year? Do I disbelieve NASA when it publishes data on the near-Earth radiation environment? If so, why?

"The government" is not some great monolithic entity. It is a whole lot of people, most doing routine but generally useful work with varying degress of efficiency; at higher levels, many have agendas often at cross-purposes with each other. Do lies get told? Sure. Do truths get told? Absolutely. Do many things get said which depend on emphasis and interpretation? Of course. How useful is it, then, to just disbelieve everything? Not very.

Back to Apollo.

[JayUtah]

No, I am not arguing Colliers case, but I am bringing up aspects of the film that are puzzling, and some have yet to be addressed.

After hearing the many errors of James Collier do you have any doubt that those remaining to be addressed will likely have a similar outcome? After the first ten arguments come down to, "Collier doesn't know what he's talking about," don't you see a theme developing? Do you really think such a film has much chance of getting the right answer?

As to whether you're taking Collier's side or not, you have defended his use of secondary sources; you have claimed his analysis of Nothing So Hidden has some sort of evidentiary merit. On the other side of the coin you have said some of his arguments are clearly unworthy.

Clarify then please what you intend by reproducing Collier's arguments here and asking for explanations?

[Ong]

What is the agenda of all the people here who seem to lack individuality and speak with virtually one voice?

Well, if you look around, you'll see plenty of disagreement on issues in which there are multiple possible valid viewpoints. Just because most of the people here respect things like evidence and logic does not mean they are all thoughtless drones -- quite the opposite. Like RadioMike said: we look at the sky and say it's blue. We look at the evidence and say we landed on the moon.

So what is our agenda? Are we clinging to a web of lies and fabiractions because it makes us feel important? Because we're all government dupes? Because we're afraid of the truth?

Because we like to think?

No, you fellers like to think within the box. Take you outside of your comfy little boxes, your fields of expertise (and some of you seem to be very good at what you do), and you're dumber than a rock. Same mindless and hysterical name calling you'd get from any tv fan, any Rush Limbaugh fan.

Anyway, I'm feeling grouchy today myself (I woke up with a headache), so bugger off. I'm in no mood to attempt to engage in badinage with pompous educated morons. You can address my remaining moon questions if you want, and if you want to engage in debate about other things, as I said before several times, as opposed to delivering little politically corrected lectures and calling me nasty names, I will meet you on a place that is more appropriate. But you don't, and you can't.

HB indeed! You're an HB, whatever that is. Yo mama an HB! Now bugger off. Leave me alone. I vant to be alone.



- Ong the Merciless, Planet Mongo




P.S. Yeah, another promising thread down the drain, eh, boss?

[JayUtah]

What is the agenda of all the people here who seem to lack individuality and speak with virtually one voice?

Maybe they're all telling the truth. There is no inherent value in being different simply for its own sake. If the truth is singular, then all who hold to it will speak with essentially the same voice. Is this not expected?

Exactly what sort of place is this?

A place were sound arguments and facts hold sway over insinuation and innuendo.

Where did I say that the moon landings were a hoax?

Where did you explicitly state a belief either way? If you force us to guess at your beliefs, don't get angry when we guess wrong. You expressed extreme distrust in government in your very first post. You reproduced the arguments of conspiracy theorists. You expressed beliefs in other conspiracy theories. Guessing that you believe Apollo was a hoax was not an arbitrary, unsubstantiated decision.

But now that the question has been faced bluntly: do you believe Apollo was real, or that it was a hoax?

[Rift]

P.S. Yeah, another promising thread down the drain, eh, boss?

That other thread was NOT promising, and should have been locked.

This is an ASTRONOMY BOARD. We ONLY discuss Astronomy here.

If you want to stir up a hornet's nest go to Randi's site and make your non-astronomy conspiracy theories claims there. Some of us visit that site. http://www.randi.org/

Don't do it here.

As for thinking out of the box, most astronomers do it as a habit. String theory, the BB theory, relativity, and numerous other things have to be thought up "out of the box". We are very good at taking other claims, finding evidence, and making a decision one way or another. Look at the history of astronomy if you don't believe me. I personally think you are suffering from projection, but that's my own personal belief.

What did you expect when you came to an Astronomy board and made the claims you did to a weary bunch of guys that have heard it ALL before??? Roses?

[AGN Fuel]

What is the agenda of all the people here who seem to lack individuality and speak with virtually one voice? Exactly what sort of place is this?

Hey Ong,

I think this issue is becoming unnecessarily polarised. You came into this forum asking some good questions based on a layperson's viewing of an ostensibly convincing video. When the expert explanations of why Collier's video is not such the revelation of "NASA's fraud" that it purports to be, you took most of them on board in good humour and accepted the points made.

I must note that you do seem to have a tendency to lean toward a conspiratorial explanation for events. Conspiracy theories are beguilingly attractive, particularly when you already have the fundamental distrust of the government that your sig suggests - in practice however, a belief in government incompetency is more likely to be closer to the mark. Governments are made up of people like you and me, and people are notoriously incapable of keeping secrets. As has been written on this board before: "The only way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead"!

However, I also strongly agree that this is not the forum to discuss some of your more - inflammatory - beliefs. This forum is for and about astronomy.

So. Let us get things back on track. You suggest that not all of the issues raised from Collier's video have been addressed to your satisfaction (although, as Jay pointed out, if Collier is found to be in error 10 times in a row, I wouldn't feel confident betting on him for issue #11). Could you please specifically indicate what elements of the Collier tape remain unexplained to your satisfaction?

[JayUtah]

I've already told you people that the Collier film is not very impressive to me, putting it mildly. But it happens to be my frame of reference, lying around here.

Fine, but how many cold french fries are you going to munch on before you realize that they're not likely to get any warmer as time goes on?

He [Ralph Rene] said that he never does that [debates]. He said that "the biggest liars win debates."

Then perhaps you'd be interested in reading the correspondence that James Oberg had with him, reproduced in part here at BABB. Oberg offered Rene $10,000 to provide evidence of just one particular assertion he made in his book. That's when Rene stopped talking to him.

More likely it's that Ralph Rene -- not a "brilliant lay physicist" as he claims, but rather a disabled, retired construction worker -- knows that in a discussion with real experts his complete lack of knowledge of space travel, science, etc. would be painfully revealed. Most of the conspiracy theorists won't engage in debates aside from sound bites. They won't talk in a forum where in-depth analysis of their arguments takes place. They won't talk where armies of experts (instead of one spokesman) can easily refute his findings.

[Ong]

What is the agenda of all the people here who seem to lack individuality and speak with virtually one voice? Exactly what sort of place is this?

Hey Ong,

I think this issue is becoming unnecessarily polarised. You came into this forum asking some good questions based on a layperson's viewing of an ostensibly convincing video. When the expert explanations of why Collier's video is not such the revelation of "NASA's fraud" that it purports to be, you took most of them on board in good humour and accepted the points made.

I must note that you do seem to have a tendency to lean toward a conspiratorial explanation for events. Conspiracy theories are beguilingly attractive, particularly when you already have the fundamental distrust of the government that your sig suggests - in practice however, a belief in government incompetency is more likely to be closer to the mark. Governments are made up of people like you and me, and people are notoriously incapable of keeping secrets. As has been written on this board before: "The only way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead"!

However, I also strongly agree that this is not the forum to discuss some of your more - inflammatory - beliefs. This forum is for and about astronomy.

So. Let us get things back on track. You suggest that not all of the issues raised from Collier's video have been addressed to your satisfaction (although, as Jay pointed out, if Collier is found to be in error 10 times in a row, I wouldn't feel confident betting on him for issue #11). Could you please specifically indicate what elements of the Collier tape remain unexplained to your satisfaction?

AGN -

Thanks for the rational response. It wasn't I that injected extraneous topics and some unpleasantness into all this. I just responded to them a bit - and, believe me, I could respond to them at length - on the other now locked down thread.

Yes, I do lean towards the conspiratorial explanation of events. I seem to have the silly idea that all of our wars were planned and plotted by behind the scenes racketeers, conspirators, or, as General S. Butler said, War Is A Racket. Or as FD Roosevelt said, everything in politics is a conspiracy.

Yeah, secrets often come out eventually, but in this day of the (still) free internet, they come out a heck of a lot faster than they did before!

My sig? Nah, that's just a takeoff on Flash Gordon that I started on the other forum.

Some of my still unresolved moon questions can be found above. I'll summarize them anon.

Ong

[Ong]

JayUtah wrote: "But now that the question has been faced bluntly: do you believe Apollo was real, or that it was a hoax?"


Yes, I believe it was real - but I'm still not sure that we are getting the whole story. Perhaps there was a secret side, like military.

Ong

[Ong]

JayUtah wrote: "Then perhaps you'd be interested in reading the correspondence that James Oberg had with him, reproduced in part here at BABB."

Yes, I would. where is BABB? Is that some link on your home page or something? I'll look.

Yes, Rene was disappointing. It would be good to see the proponents of what you and the media call "conspiracy theories" willing and able to defend their theories and engage in free and honest and open debate - especially the officially sanctioned and legally decreed and mandated conspiracy theories!


Ong






Ong

[freddo]

.. So how does kitting about on the LRV and astrophotography lead you to those beliefs?

[JayUtah]

I have researched the Apollo program vigorously for more than four years, and informally for much longer than that. I have climbed inside spacecraft, looked at drawings, and read thousands of pages of previously classified documents. The only element of Apollo which today remains classified (and I'm not even sure about that) is Operation Chapel Bell, which was a classified Defense Department experiment undertaken in conjunction with Apollo. I say I'm not sure because although I know it was initially classified, I can't find anyone who knows for sure whether it still is or not. The experiment didn't involve the astronauts or anything they did explicitly. I believe it had to do with the dynamics of slamming the third stage of the Saturn V into the lunar surface. I'm unsure what military application that might have.

To get back to the point, I'm sure I can't claim that everything relating to Apollo is easily accessible to the public. Even in projects with nothing unsavory about them, there's still the standard archival entropy. But I'm convinced that I've researched enough about Apollo to know that if there were some significant piece of it that remained undocumented, I'd have run up against that absence by now. I'm also convinced that if some element were a cover story, I'd have exposed it by now.

Perhaps it would be best if you listed in a numbered list those items in Collier's film that are still unclear to you. I don't want you to think we are uninterested in Collier's charges. But please understand that we are unconvinced by them. If your aim is to debate them and argue that they constitute meaningful evidence of a hoax, you may find the climate for that debate somewhat frigid given your experience in other threads. If you simply want to know if there's an answer, you will probably find the climate much more agreeable.

[RadioMike]

JayUtah wrote: "But now that the question has been faced bluntly: do you believe Apollo was real, or that it was a hoax?"


Yes, I believe it was real - but I'm still not sure that we are getting the whole story. Perhaps there was a secret side, like military.

Ong

Ok...I'm gonna hate myself for saying this, but I'll throw you a bone, so to speak.

Yes - I'm quite certain our military takes an active interest in ALL of our civilian-driven efforts with rocketry and I don't think it would be a stretch of the imagination to consider that at the time, they had an active interest in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs, as they more than likely have an interest in the Shuttle, Satellite, and Mars programs.

At least, I sure as hell hope they do!!! I wouldn't think too much of our military leaders if they DIDN'T take notes!!

However - did the astronauts on board take part in covert "spy" activity???

Most here might give that a resounding "NO!" and I'm inclined to agree and curiously, if they *had* been involved in such activity - the sheer number of people who would have had to have been clued in on the mission planning wouldn't have stayed quiet about it for long. And for purposes of national security - they wouldn't have *had* to keep quiet about it for long.

So the short answer to your question is, not very likely! :-?

I'm also not suggesting that complicity and conspiracy doesn't exist. The FDA being asinine and labeling Canadian Drug Manufacturers "not up to par" with American Drug Manufacturers and forbidding their import is IMHO, a conspiracy to defraud the public at Canada's expense and to the boon of the "American Drug Lobby". BUT - and IF I'm right about this - that's a conspiracy involving a very limited number of people. Even if I'm wrong, the idea is plausable because its a very controllable number of "conspirators".

AND - I could very well be wrong - simply because I'm not in possession of all of the facts.

Hey...I got to use the word, "lobby"...always wanted to do that... :P

[JayUtah]

Yes, I would. where is BABB? Is that some link on your home page or something? I'll look.

Right here: BABB = Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board. Use the search function linked above. James Oberg posts here as "JimO" and I believe you'll find he is the thread originator.

It would be good to see the proponents of what you and the media call "conspiracy theories" willing and able to defend their theories and engage in free and honest and open debate

But they never stop trying to collect money for them. Ralph Rene will happily sell you a copy of his book, but he won't happily discuss it in learned company. Do you see why we form the opinion that these individuals are motivated by fame or fortune?

Keep in mind that that behavior does nothing to further watchdogging of government. You'll find that most of us here don't "toe the party line," as you've suggested, but rather that we are vocal critics of government. We believe that criticism of government, in order to be credible, must be based on facts and sound reasoning. The conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, have either no facts or a carefully selected subset of them, and that their relationship with logic is not even that of a passing acquaintanceship. This actually dilutes meaningful criticism of goverment by conveying the impression to the general public that people who criticize the government are nut cases. Valid causes are then rejected out of guilt by association.

[Tomblvd]

Yes, I would. where is BABB? Is that some link on your home page or something? I'll look.

Ong



Oh brother! ROTFLMAO!!!

NO! Ong. It is a secret. You are not allowed admittance to the B(ad)A(stronomy) B(ulletin)B(oard).

(I know I'm going to get a lecture from Phil, but this is getting ridiculous)

[sts60]

No, you fellers like to think within the box. Take you outside of your comfy little boxes, your fields of expertise (and some of you seem to be very good at what you do), and you're dumber than a rock. Same mindless and hysterical name calling you'd get from any tv fan, any Rush Limbaugh fan.

Anyway, I'm feeling grouchy today myself (I woke up with a headache), so bugger off. I'm in no mood to attempt to engage in badinage with pompous educated morons. You can address my remaining moon questions if you want, and if you want to engage in debate about other things, as I said before several times, as opposed to delivering little politically corrected lectures and calling me nasty names, I will meet you on a place that is more appropriate. But you don't, and you can't.

HB indeed! You're an HB, whatever that is. Yo mama an HB! Now bugger off. Leave me alone. I vant to be alone.
*snerk*
<reply deleted>
OK, Greta, whatever you say.

[AGN Fuel]

Yes, I do lean towards the conspiratorial explanation of events. I seem to have the silly idea that all of our wars were planned and plotted by behind the scenes racketeers, conspirators, or, as General S. Butler said, War Is A Racket. Or as FD Roosevelt said, everything in politics is a conspiracy.

I will not be drawn into this argument other than to politely disagree. Not every spider you find is deadly.


Yeah, secrets often come out eventually, but in this day of the (still) free internet, they come out a heck of a lot faster than they did before!

Unfortunately, while the internet certainly is a remarkable boon educationally, allowing free & easy access to vast amounts of information, it has also permitted every John Q Wacko with his/her own barrow to push to gain the attention of a potentially vast audience. For every ALSJ, there are 100 Nancy Lieders. This is why rigorous investigation of source documents is not just appropriate, but essential, when looking at some of these claims. I see the internet a bit like looking for jewellery in a sewage plant - every now and then you find a glint of gold in your bucket, but goodness me, to find it you have to dredge up an awful amount of shall we change the topic now?


My sig? Nah, that's just a takeoff on Flash Gordon that I started on the other forum.

Regardless of the source, the fact that you chose it suggests that you have sympathy with the statement.


Some of my still unresolved moon questions can be found above. I'll summarize them anon.

I will look forward to it.

[JayUtah]

I am certain there was DAC footage of the Apollo 11 LM ascent, taken from Aldrin's window.

Yes, but not until well after pitchover. Apparently Buzz didn't push the button. Understandable; he had a lot on his mind.

I've included the spacecraftfilms link and section quote:

Onboard Film

In this 16mm data acquisition camera film, views were taken of the ascent from the surface, the approach of Eagle after lunar liftoff, views of the lunar surface from orbit, and life aboard Columbia.

Disk 3 has some random 16mm footage from Eagle on the ascent, and approach and docking as seen from Columbia. But the liftoff -- or rather, several seconds after liftoff -- footage is on Disk 1.

[The Bad Astronomer]

Anyway, I'm feeling grouchy today myself (I woke up with a headache), so bugger off. I'm in no mood to attempt to engage in badinage with pompous educated morons.

When you are in the mood, find some other place to discuss this. You are no longer welcome here.

[Dwight]

Yes, but not until well after pitchover. Apparently Buzz didn't push the button. Understandable; he had a lot on his mind.


Disk 3 has some random 16mm footage from Eagle on the ascent, and approach and docking as seen from Columbia. But the liftoff -- or rather, several seconds after liftoff -- footage is on Disk 1.[/quote]

Thanks Jay, I wasn't sure if you had the set or not, or whether you had meant eaxctly what you did mean (ie after pitchover) so I added it lest the argument get pounced on over semantics.

BTW I am not an HBer. What I am though, is not very knowledgable on engineering with the sole exception of TV and radio technology. Having said that please see the new thread I started.

Cheers,

Dwight

[sts60]

Ong, on the off-chance you happen to read this again, a few words of advice:
(1) You weren't banned because you didn't "conform" or whatever. You were banned because you were rude and insulting, repeatedly. Some of the feedback you got was pretty hotheaded too, but you kept it up. So go brag about how you forced Dr. Plait to ban you because of your superior mind or whatever, but that wasn't the case.
(2) You can win arguments by yelling and stomping on a lot of boards, but not on this one. That's why I hang out here.
(3) People who disagree with you are not automatically "unable to think out of the box". That's one of the first refuges of the True Hoax Believer. It doesn't impress the regulars here.
(4) You should have looked around on BABB. You would have easily seen the regulars who disagree with the "establishment" - John Kieren, ExpErdMan, HankSolo, etc. They keep telling us everything we know - or a good chunk of it - is nonsense. But they are long time regulars here. Why?
(5) If you think scientists, engineers, and people interested in science and engineering can't think "out of the box", you obviously haven't spent much time hanging around them.
(6) For the last time - reflexive disbelief is not the same as skepticism.

[Rift]

(6) For the last time - reflexive disbelief is not the same as skepticism.

This is the thing about "true believers" that upsets me the most I think.

I consider myself a skeptic and open-minded. Why?

Well, I clicked on every link that Ong posted. And, surprise surprise, I had been to every site he gave as 'proof' for his various conspiracy theories before. Not one of them was new to me, except for the so called liberty forum, and I had been to its homepage before.

I check the kook sites. I listen to their theories. I listen to other theories. I make a conclusion. Somehow, if that conclusion doesn't fit what the hoax/conspriacy/true believers believe, I'm automatically a brainwashed, regime puppet with an agenda towing the party line.

Skeptics always search, always look, always ask questions. I have reversed my opinion on several major scientific, and non-scientific, theories throughout my life time. I doubt the average hoax/conspiracy/true believer can say the same...

I have been to nearly every moon hoax, creationist, 9/11 conspiracy, holocaust denier, ufo, alien, bigfoot, and what have you, site I can find. Because I have, but still don't believe, somehow makes me closed minded and unable to think outside the box?

I've been interested in pseudo-science for a long time, long before the internet came along. I've given it all a chance. I still do. And I hear the same old tired easily debunked arguments.

Having an open mind does not mean automatically believing every conspiracy at once, even if they are at odds with each other, and automatically disbelieving anything that has to do with the government. That is almost a text book definition of "closed minded" in my opinion. And projecting that onto non-hoax believers seems to be a characteristic of hoax believers too...

I would never call John Kieren, Hank Solo, A. Dim and the others that STS60 mentioned, closed minded or unable to think outside the box. I think they are wrong on a lot of stuff, but that doesn't mean I think they are unable to think or have some kind of 'agenda'. I occasionally even agree with them. Science needs people to challenge it, in fact it doesn't work unless people DO challenge it.

Okay, well, I'm off my soap box. And unfortunately I know it won't do any good anyway... ::sigh::

[jrkeller]

JayUtah wrote: "But now that the question has been faced bluntly: do you believe Apollo was real, or that it was a hoax?"


Yes, I believe it was real - but I'm still not sure that we are getting the whole story. Perhaps there was a secret side, like military.

Ong

Of course you'll never have the entire story. Hundreds of the thousands of people worked on Apollo, thousands of companies contributed, and many foreign countries donated their facilities. You can't get the entire story.

My next door neighbor worked for NASA from 1959-1995. He has a lot of interesting stories. He personally knows most of the first six groups of astronauts. His daughter even dated Frank Borman son. His story will probably be never told, yet it is quite interesting.

Was the military involved with Apollo. Of course they were. It is not a hidden or secret fact. At least one of the military experiments is still classified. I'm sure that they were also involved with Apollo in ways that NASA didn't even know about, such as deep space tracking, photography and the like.

[JayUtah]

Again the specter of "thinking outside the box" has arisen. In the conspiracist vocabulary, thinking outside the box refers to abandonding traditional methods of science and engineering and embracing far-reaching or "new age" theories. This co-opts the phrase. The mainstream meaning describes taking unconventional approaches to problem-solving. This includes dropping self-imposed constraints and making productive use of non-linear thinking.

A classic example is the car accident that kills a father and seriously injures his son. The son is brought to the hospital where the doctor says, "I cannot treat this man; he is my son." People accustomed to thinking inside the box invent non-standard familial relationships in order to explain this apparent paradox, while people who think outside the box point out that the doctor was the patient's mother. The unstated (and invalid) constraint is that doctors must be men.

There are many such examples, and people who are scientifically or creatively minded tend to solve them faster than others. The classic one in architecture is the 3x3 regular grid of dots that you must connect using only four straight, connected line segments. You are immediately constrained naturally to think within the confines of the grid and along the straightforward dimensions. The solution involves diagonal lines that pass considerably outside the "visual" boundaries of the dots. No wonder then that people interviewing for positions in which they will be creating or designing things are often subjected to tests of their non-linear thinking skills.

It turns out, however, that non-linear thinking is modus non gratus in the business end of things. If you design things that you plan later to sell, you had better stay pretty close to that box even if it means doing things "wrong" from a technical point of view.

But that's neither here nor there. The key concept to "thinking outside the box" in classical terms -- not as the conspiracists use it -- is that it still has to work. An idea may be brilliantly non-linear, innovative, and elegant. But if it doesn't solve the problem at hand, or any other problem, what good is it? Scientists and engineers and similar people think outside the box all the time. They innovate for a living. But the New Age tripe that's passed around pseudoscientific circles as "enlightened" science isn't thinking outside the box. Or rather, it's thinking outside the box, the building, the city, and far into the next county. We have no proof of its correctness, no confidence in its predictions; and its practitioners certainly can't use it to make anything useful.

This is not to say that utility is the sine qua non of thinking. But if that thinking is intended to try to explain something tangible like the moon landing evidence, it had better be more than just a pie in the sky.

[Wingnut Ninja]

Did anyone else just get their email spammed by Ong? :o

[Rift]

Yeah, I think I just did... wwerewolff??? I haven't opened them yet, probably won't.

Jay, you're always so articulate and elegant. You said exactly what I wanted to say.

I think that Ong was more upset about the fact that we didn't want to talk about the other non-apollo conspiracies, he admited some of us knew our astronomy very well.

Oddly, he proved the hunch that most conspiracists believe ALL conspiracies. Which I think is "thinking inside the box" much more then we do...

[die Nullte]

Ong was more upset about the fact that we didn't want to talk about the other non-apollo conspiracies

Well, BA thought some of us were *too* eager to talk about them. But, he's right. This *is* astronomy-oriented, and once you start debating other conspiracies, where do you stop?

[Glom]

I think the problem was that while we can debate the Apollohoax coolly, some of the conspiracy theories he admitted he endorsed we actually found offensive, and we became uncomfortable talking to a person who embraces such things, even if the topic at hand was actually being handled intelligently.

When we showed our disdain for such conspiracy theories, we kind of initiated a flame war. I think we should take at least as much blame for that as we assign to him.

However, the point that started this off was indeed proven. Endorsement of the Apollohoax is generally a symptom of a much larger psychological problem of paranoia and distrust, which manifests itself in belief in many anti-government conspiracy theories. Ong, who at first seemed very rational from his receptiveness to our debunkings, was exposed as being another headcase.

Frankly, I think we could have handled the situation better.

[Donnie B.]

Frankly, I think we could have handled the situation better.
Therein lies a problem.

In contrast to what Ong thought, "we" are not a single entity acting in perfect concordance. Some of us are touchy about certain topics, while others are more level headed about those but hypersensitive about others. Some have more patience with, shall we say, less than perfectly rational arguments than others do.

In a forum like this one, it's impossible to guarantee that everyone in the discussion will comport him or herself properly at all times.

I don't really have any solutions. There's no way I can see to prevent one cheap shot from poisoning an otherwise productive discussion. The best we can hope for is a bit of self-policing -- calling each other on those occasions where we step over the line. But that needs to be handled tactfully, too, or the result could be unfortunate squabbles.

Perhaps the real starting point is individual self-policing.

[Rift]

Frankly, I think we could have handled the situation better.

Oh, yeah, I agree. But we policed ourselves pretty well on that other thread. It was already pretty quiet by the time Phil locked it.

And I don't think we should ever talk about non-astronomy conspiracy theories. There are pleanty of other boards for that. And we gave Ong quite a few links to them too...

[Swift]

Perhaps the real starting point is individual self-policing.
Very good point. I know I personally go crazy when people state that the Holocaust or 9/11 didn't happen or is some sort of pack of lies. I try to just stay out of the fray.

[jrkeller]

Perhaps the real starting point is individual self-policing.
Very good point. I know I personally go crazy when people state that the Holocaust or 9/11 didn't happen or is some sort of pack of lies. I try to just stay out of the fray.

I think the problem with these folks is that if something just doesn't quite fit, the whole thing must be wrong or a hoax.

I remember in the 1970's that there seemed to be a lot of Jewish people (It was probably about a hundred total) finding a long last relative who they thought died in a camp. I think in these conspiracy/hoax minds that is enough to say that the Holocaust never happen. It's just that everyone lost track of each other.

When it comes to the moon hoax, the moon was and is an unknown and unexperienced environment and things are going to seem odd. Through in the fact that much of science and engineering is beyond most people and that just makes it worse.

[SpitfireIX]

Frankly, I think we could have handled the situation better.
Therein lies a problem.

In contrast to what Ong thought, "we" are not a single entity acting in perfect concordance. Some of us are touchy about certain topics, while others are more level headed about those but hypersensitive about others. Some have more patience with, shall we say, less than perfectly rational arguments than others do.

In a forum like this one, it's impossible to guarantee that everyone in the discussion will comport him or herself properly at all times.



I admit that I could have been a bit more civil to Ong. But I stand by everything I said--his comments were extremely ignorant and paranoid. And I was highly offended by them (although I don't agree that denying the Holocaust automatically makes him anti-semitic--it could just be a sign of extreme ignorance). Having said that, I'm fairly convinced that he is a troll; he's just more sophisticated than most. So I suppose that he probably succeeded in his objective of stirring up trouble.

[aporetic_r]

Hmm... I hesitate to say this, but I the self-policing issue assumes that the sole motivation for everyone's responses to HBs is to dispassionately inform them of their errors. Especially given how eager some people have been for new HBs to show up (which in itself is not a bad thing), I don't think such dispassionate correction and the dissemination of information is everyone's motivation. A few perfectly good and decent pro-Apollo regulars (or at least semi-regulars) seem to really enjoy poking HBs and getting them upset. We all know the HB psychology pretty well by this point, and it is generally easy to manipulate, and some people here like doing just that.

Aporetic

[sts60]

I do confess to something akin to malicious enjoyment when I and others calmly and politely work to pin them down an their assertions while Jay lays down his - well, it's like laser-guided munitions, but on a carpet-bombing scale - and they get all frustrated because we won't just yell at them.

But it's not much compared to the enjoyment I get when someone actually learns that the hoax "theories" are 99.9% vacuum.

[die Nullte]

But it's not much compared to the enjoyment I get when someone actually learns that the hoax "theories" are 99.9% vacuum.

Do they ever admit this? I thought we were very close with Ong, but our general refusal to buy his other conspiracies, and his conclusion that we were refusing to "think outside the box" and our alleged disinterest in anything outside our expertise may have torpedoed the deal.

[Wingnut Ninja]

Oh, this is rich:


What a pathetic bunch of smug, self-satisfied [censored]! Unbe[censored]lievable! Retards with college
degrees. Morons tellin' each other how great they are
and how stupid and nuts all their enemies are.

Come and debate me here, idiot savants!

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=41568

Ong!

Please tell me I'm not the only one getting these emails, this guy is completely insane.

[JayUtah]

Don't flatter yourself; he's spamming lots of us.

[The Bad Astronomer]

I am so *&%^$(&$( sick of banning HBs. Why can't they simply stay polite? Is it so hard? And speaking of which...



I called up Ralph Rene (found his number on the internet) and asked him if he would be willing to engage in debate here. He said that he never does that. He said that "the biggest liars win debates."


That's so ironic I can hardly stand it. Anyway, Rene would last probably three posts here tops before getting banned for profanity use and being rude. I've dealt with him before.

[Charlie in Dayton]

Let's see, did I get that right? Ong is hanging out on a Russian board which at first/second/third glance seems to be run by the newspaper Pravda...and that's where he wants us to come play...oooooooooooookay...

BA, be of good cheer. It's a tough job, but it bears fruit. As one who has deservedly had his knuckles rapped with The Hickory Ruler Of The Admin, I can say that my fear of attracting your righteous displeasure has forced me to reexamine my methods of taking the bubbleheaded to task. Sure, those rants do blow off a lot of steam, but in the end no additional light is brought to bear. Better a more dispassionate but factually accurate dissection of the matter (and resultingly, also the Original Poster) by display of common sense, education, erudition, and couth. Besides, if ya get 'em frothing enough by questioning their "facts", they lose track of things and don't notice that the rest of the terminology calls into question their biological extraction, legitimacy of parents' marriage, and similarity in absolute value of their Intelligence Quotient and normal room temperature.

Thank you for the opportunity to learn, to share, to laugh, and to better appreciate what's out there.

[TriangleMan]

Does anyone watch American Idol? You know how they get a lot of people who can't sing but when the judges tell them they can't sing the person just storms off and say things like "Paula Abdul doesn't know what good singing is!".

They remind me of most HBers who come to this Board.

[SpitfireIX]

Don't flatter yourself; he's spamming lots of us.


Hmmmm. He hasn't been spamming me, but my e-mail address is in my profile. I doubt that I did such a brilliant job of debunking his Pearl Harbor claims that he's afraid to debate me; I wonder if there's another reason.

[Thumper]

Was it all an act?

It took me three days to read through this thread. It was like a novel: action, plot twists, I wasn't sure if Ong was going to be the bad guy or not. It looked as though he was listening to explanations and accepting them. Even though he couldn't stop bringing up other minor, easily explained "anamolies". Then suddenly, Wammo. He's rude, and characterizing everyone else here together with insults.

What happened? Was he really listening and then something made him snap? Or was his politeness and openess an act?

[Rift]

I think the wammo came when he admited he also believed Pearl Harbor/9-11/Holocaust were all hoxes, conspiracies.

We took him to task in that thread, and he carried it, or tried to carry it, over here.

He seems to think that not talking about those things on an astronomy board is somehow not "thinking outside of the box".

[Sigma_Orionis]

Was it all an act?

It took me three days to read through this thread. It was like a novel: action, plot twists, I wasn't sure if Ong was going to be the bad guy or not. It looked as though he was listening to explanations and accepting them. Even though he couldn't stop bringing up other minor, easily explained "anamolies". Then suddenly, Wammo. He's rude, and characterizing everyone else here together with insults.

What happened? Was he really listening and then something made him snap? Or was his politeness and openess an act?

this reminds me in a way of an HB called unclejim, who came trying to play the "nice" hoaxer, check out how that went here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=8535), at least the BA didn't have to ban him.

[JayUtah]

"In like a lamb, out like a lion," is not uncommon. A lot of conspiracists begin a debate by saying they only have questions, or that they're sitting on the fence. They're initially polite and conciliatory, but then become belligerent and entrenched.

It's painful for us because some people legitimately do have just questions and aren't looking to do more than state their concerns and wait for them to be addressed. I have firm Apollo believers take me aside all the time and say things like, "I've always wondered why those fiducials disappear." They just want to know. The pain comes from trying to decide whether someone's congeniality is genuine or just a front, and then getting it wrong.

When it's a wolf in sheep's clothing, like Ong seems to have been, it's like two boxers circling waiting for the other one to throw the first punch. The person who gets hit first can always accuse the other one of being unnecessarily aggressive. This is why, at the very beginning, it's usually a good idea to welcome a new poster cordially but firmly insist that say what, if anything, he already believes.

I don't like it when the debate turns to a meta-debate (i.e., a discussion about the discussion itself). Now we need to point out logical errors when they occur. But when the debate turns into who said what at what time or which points have been left unsubstantiated and the people involved are doing nothing but hurling Latin fallacy names at each other, it ceases to be an informative discussion. Fundamentally we're talking about something that happened either one way or another. That's a matter of putative fact and it won't be settled by lawyeristic gymnastics. It's not about what can be proven. It's about what really happened.

[freddo]

I'm not sure if this has already been commented on, but:

Did The USA really go to the moon? Ong vs. the Moon People (http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=56192)

Deliberate chain-yanking.




I'd say that the score is Moon People: 1 Ong: -5 so far....
It would probably help if I knew what I was talking about, but in lieu of that, I'll just brazen it out and fake it!



Yeah, those guys are really sharp. It's gonna take some fancy footwork on my part not to get a good whupping. The whole pack of them are piling on too.


I lost, by unanimous decision.
:-(
Ong

At least he saw the correct outcome. Lose no more sleep.

[Stuart]

I'm not sure if this has already been commented on, but:

Did The USA really go to the moon? Ong vs. the Moon People (http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=56192)

Deliberate chain-yanking.

Nothing but a pathetic troll. Sad really isn't it; you would think he had better things to do. Perhaps not though; did you look back at the parent site that threat came from? That is one sick group of people.

[TriangleMan]

Sad really isn't it; you would think he had better things to do.
If it makes anyone feel better, I learned a lot about the Collier video thanks to this thread.

[Thumper]

I learned alot as well. I also went and read about Unclejim. And found interesting information there(none from jim though). That's why I like reading here, I always learn something. I'm almost glad BABBling is temproarily down. While I can participate more, I don't learn as much.

Unclejim and Ong had similarities in the way they presented their "arguements" then changed tactics.

Question: Is their entire stragety pre-scripted and planned, or do they get frustrated at something in the arguements presented to them and then get mad? Are they trying to pick a fight, and just wait for a time to pounce, or is it legitimate frustration that nobody else at the board buys into their interpretations of whatever "anamolies" they've brought up?

[frenat]

Many are just trying to pick a fight. ONG seems to have been this way, Tezzer was as well. Others are frustrated that nobody else sees what they do. A certain 84 page thread recently closed on the General Astronomy section of the BABB comes to mind.

[Tensor]

. A certain 84 page thread recently closed on the General Astronomy section of the BABB comes to mind.

l must have missed that. 8)

[frenat]

I can't imagine how. :wink:

[RadioMike]

Question: Is their entire stragety pre-scripted and planned, or do they get frustrated at something in the arguements presented to them and then get mad? Are they trying to pick a fight, and just wait for a time to pounce, or is it legitimate frustration that nobody else at the board buys into their interpretations of whatever "anamolies" they've brought up?

I honestly feel these folks don't realize how many professionals frequent this board and aren't prepared for the educated answers with which they're presented.

I was rather tickled by some of the comments from other posters on the "Pravda" board.

I'm just a Computer Tech and HAM Radio Op. Most of the answers are lost on me - but that's ok. My feet are firmly entrenched in reality and having grown up during the Apollo era and having just a bit of common sense is enough to "give battle" to one of these...er...uhm...persons.

Others may disagree but I happen to think using common sense is sufficient enough to see many of the flaws in their thinking.

Mike - W8UBH

[Tensor]

I honestly feel these folks don't realize how many professionals frequent this board and aren't prepared for the educated answers with which they're presented.

It's not just the professionals. The talent of some of the non-profesionals on here is pretty impressive also. Those people have learned a lot from the professionals and can give as good of an explanation as the pros on some things. Of course, there is just something about a BA, or JayUtah, or Tim Thompson or Celestial Mechanic post (among others) that is a beauty to behold.


I was rather tickled by some of the comments from other posters on the "Pravda" board.

Heheheh, yeah, page18 knew Ong had no chance.


Others may disagree but I happen to think using common sense is sufficient enough to see many of the flaws in their thinking.

Mostly true, but there are times when I can't determine whether it was just a misunderstanding, the other person didn't want to see the light, or the other person was being intentionally provocative.

[starnut]

Hello,all.Isee that Ong was a real hit!You have a real nice board here.Think I'll hang around if it alright.

[JimTKirk]

Hello,all.Isee that Ong was a real hit!You have a real nice board here.Think I'll hang around if it alright.

Welcome! Glad to have you here! All we ask is that you read and follow the FAQ and I'm sure you will learn alot from people like JayUtah and the BA 8) and jscotti plus many others!

Good Luck!

[Humphrey]

yah. Welcome to the board!! :-D

[starnut]

Ay captain I have read the faqs.I dont have an internet fishing permit,so no trolling from me. Starbuck chased Ong all the way back to the funny farm.Pretty good rebuttals all the way around here.Anyhow,have agood night.

[Starbuck]

Hmm, I seem to have let one in through the Out door...
:-k

And how on earth is your post count still at one?!

[starnut]

Starbuck,you have 'misoverestimated'me.I wouldnt have the fortitude to post over there.As for post counts it seems that a lot of forum software does that to new members.Leta see what it says now.

[Humphrey]

It seems tro of messed up. It says you have 3 posts but when i check your profile, you reallty have 5. Weird.

[starnut]

Yes Humphrey,its weird.Lots of boards have problems like that.Im not too good with computers but "Mysql" errors are common.This might go hand in hand with the "critical error, database unreachable" errors that seem to be going on around here.Beats me.

[Humphrey]

You want to know really weird? go to membederlist and have it sort by date. See who was the first poster to register for this board. :-)

[starnut]

'69!!! :o !HoHoHo!That IS weird.

[Sakura Kinomoto]

MySQL is the lanaguage programs use to query the database. It's much more likely that with the database becoming this size that the qureys are goofing up and the database is becoming slightly corrupted. Unsure if that's really it though. As to the '69 error. I belief that is the lowest date the DATE type can store in this century.


Back to the actual topic, I read the entire thing and it seemed that really he only had a few topics and then when reading the linked thread *sigh* People's mind are sometimes just set in stone

[Starbuck]

It SEEMS (seems, mind you), judging by the evidence, starnut's post count is equal to x-2 where x is their actual number of posts.
It bears further research. I need a grant. Anybody got a spare grant?

[starnut]

Starbuck,I have a six pack and a dozen donuts if that will help :lol: I think Sakura hit the nail though :-k

[pg18]

Awesome job guys, I enjoyed this quite a bit. Although I may not be all that smart, I feel smarter after reading this.




Perhaps not though; did you look back at the parent site that threat came from? That is one sick group of people.

I resent that. 8) I think I'm one of the saner people on that site.

By the way, if JayUtah(I believe)would want to go to that site and use his knowlege on the Holocaust to refute claims that it was a fake, it would actually be appreciated. I'm sick and tired of people like Ong saying it wasn't real.

Sorry, a bit off topic, I know. Forgive me. :D

Other than that, this was a verygood read. Thanks a bunch fellas.

[Tensor]

It bears further research. I need a grant. Anybody got a spare grant?

I've got plenty of spare granite out back , I use it to.....oh,grant. Uh.... but... Uh... Awwwwww 8-[

[Humphrey]

Welcome to the board pg18!!!! :-D Kick back, post and stay a while.

[Starbuck]

Awesome job guys, I enjoyed this quite a bit. Although I may not be all that smart, I feel smarter after reading this.

By the way, if JayUtah(I believe)would want to go to that site and use his knowlege on the Holocaust to refute claims that it was a fake, it would actually be appreciated. I'm sick and tired of people like Ong saying it wasn't real.

I believe Stuart is the man you're looking for in that case.

[Stuart]

I am so *&%^$(&$( sick of banning HBs. Why can't they simply stay polite? Is it so hard?

Dr Plait, its not that they find staying polite hard, its their deliberate policy not to do so. This is something that I've noticed in a lot of boards of varying types. Somebody turns up making contentious claims of varying sorts, then, when they lose the argument they start screaming insults at the other participants. When the administration steps in they start yelling abuse at the administrators (and usually screaming about "free speech" into the bargain). The obvious result is that they get banned - and that was the whole point of the exercise. The next step is that the troll in question goes back to their home board and claims that they had been banned because they'd won the argument. Ong is doing that now - he's claiming that he won the debate here and was banned as a consequence.

These things seem to run in fashions; the previous one was to turn up and pose a string of heavily-loaded "questions" then, when they are comprehensively demolished, the person responsible claims they "were only asking" squeals about "free speech" and vanishes in a huff. Again, he goes back to his home community and tells everybody that nobody could give him any answers to his "questions".

Trolls like Ong are hard to deal with because banning them gives them what they want. Ong's intention here was to get banned from the moment he made his first post. On our board we made a little experiment with a person of this type, we simply ignored him. The abuse and language he was using got fouller and fouller as he tried to get himself banned and, in the end he stumped off. Didn't do any good, he still claimed he'd been banned because he'd "won all the arguments".

[Gmann]

I have been working a lot lately, and missed this thread until now. Stuart hit it on the head. This one reminds me of the "Paulo Il magnifico" thing, he came in asking for opinions on things, then became abusive and demanded to be banned, and ultimately the BA 8) blew him to bytes. Maybe out in woo-woo land, there is a medal awarded to trolls who get banned from this board. I thought Jay answered his questions quite well on the first page of this thread, but he had to get up and try to beat the same dead horse with a broken stick.

BTW Humphrey, you are coming close to the "Kilopi Limit". What are you prepared to do?

[Glom]

Most inciteful, Stuart. By getting themselves banned, they can accuse us of what we accuse Jack White: banning those that threaten our cheery walled in garden. That's why BA probably hates doing it. If every HBer who comes along gets banned, it doesn't reflect well on us.

[russ_watters]

I am so *&%^$(&$( sick of banning HBs. Why can't they simply stay polite? Is it so hard?
Trolls like Ong are hard to deal with because banning them gives them what they want. Ong's intention here was to get banned from the moment he made his first post. I'm not sure thats necessarily true. The reason there aren't many calm, rational HB's is that if they were calm and rational, they wouldn't be HB's.

[Glom]

I don't know. Ong seemed pretty calm and rational when he arrived. But I take your point that those who are calm and rational tend not be ardent HBers for long.

[JayUtah]

Most conspiracists are adept and sneaking in like a lamb, even when their aim is to go out like a lion. "I have some questions about the moon landings..." etc., followed by the standard Sibrellian or Collieresque arguments. At Apollohoax we've seen it quite often.

[TriangleMan]

At Apollohoax we've seen it quite often.

Not to mention here. unclejim and Santa come to mind.

[Papermache Prince]

Well, you can hardly expect someone to open with "I have some easily refuted questions about the moon landings which I will post until everyone is annoyed with me and I have a colossal meltdown."

[Stuart]

Well, you can hardly expect someone to open with "I have some easily refuted questions about the moon landings which I will post until everyone is annoyed with me and I have a colossal meltdown."

But wouldn't it be refreshing if, just for once, they did. And if they listened to the answers..

[Mauritania]

You do realize you're talking to yourself, right? Not healthy.

Edit** hehe this was in reply to the previous 3 posts that were deleted... just so you don't think that I'm talking to myself.

[Starbuck]

http://community.middlebury.edu/~dsanford/pics/trolling.jpg

Now, where did the BA put that padlock...?

[Tomblvd]

You do realize you're talking to yourself, right? Not healthy.

Wow! Ong disintegrated!

That was cool. :D

[Glom]

What's going on? What'd I miss?

[Bob B.]

What's going on? What'd I miss?

Someone claiming to be Ong posted a message under the user name WinstonSmith. Apparently the BA deleted it. He basically just showed up to insult us and claim that he was both victor and victim.