Novel Arguments but same old Stupidity!

[paulie jay]

Like most of us, I suppose, I’ve had my fair share of frustrating conversations regarding the moon landing. I had one debate recently which really took the biscuit.

My opponent on this occasion was of the “make a rash statement, allow three words in reply, interrupt, blindly go on to the next point” style of which you are all too aware I’m sure! His “facts” seemed to have been sourced from dodgy websites and “documentaries”, so it was your standard bunch of moon hoax arguments. Along with the “fluttering flag”, “shadows”, “radiation”, “no stars” arguments he even threw in the “Coke bottle incident”. He actually admitted having not seen the footage but had heard about it, and that was enough for him.

I usually try to extract myself from these situations as quickly as possible because I do find them very stressful. But then he threw in two arguments that were so absurd that I couldn’t help but get sucked back into the argument. I was wondering if anyone else here has had these beauties laid on them, and if they were as incredulous as I was when it happened.

Argument One – Back in the early 1960’s NASA issued a directive to Hollywood that night scenes in films had to contain stars.
Where do you start with this one…? I explained that NASA was not in a position to issue directives to movie studios. But even if they were in a position to do so – why would they? What would be the point - to drum up interest in stars or something? He seemed to think that it was a vital point in “proving” the landing was a fake. I could perhaps understand where he was coming from if stars were visible in the moon photos. I didn’t really get a chance to knock this one aside because he had already interrupted me for his next bombshell.

Argument Two – The moon doesn’t rotate and it keeps the same face towards us – and nobody can explain why…

I said “I’m not surprised nobody can explain why as it is physically impossible.” He wouldn’t have it – “the moon does not rotate”. And thus begun an excruciating 20 minute explanation of the moon’s rotation and why it is so. At one point I stood him in the middle of the room while I orbited around him. Nothing worked. Like most of these crackpots he wasn’t even interested in learning something. If only I could have emailed it to him with lots of caps-lock I might have been able to swing him. But anyway, what does any of this point have to do with fake landings? Beats me, but apparently NASA or “The Government” or the CIA (who knows, they’re all the same to these people) is knee deep in it.

From that day I swore I would never again get sucked into discussions on the moon landing. And oh how I’ve failed…

[Paul Beardsley]

Fascinating - I've never heard these "arguments" before. It occurs to me that the lack of critical thinking is at best a serious character flaw; at worst it borders on mental illness.

I wonder if there are any moons that don't rotate, so that the inhabitants of the planet see all the way round over the course of a month. There probably aren't many as moons tend to be tidally locked, but you never know...

Come to that, are there any known moons that aren't tidally locked? Not counting sort-of moons like Cruithne.

[Jason Thompson]

Come to that, are there any known moons that aren't tidally locked?

Saturn's moon Hyperion is not tidally locked. Instead, it shows chaotic rotation.

[Glom]

My opponent on this occasion was of the “make a rash statement, allow three words in reply, interrupt, blindly go on to the next point” style of which you are all too aware I’m sure! His “facts” seemed to have been sourced from dodgy websites and “documentaries”, so it was your standard bunch of moon hoax arguments. Along with the “fluttering flag”, “shadows”, “radiation”, “no stars” arguments he even threw in the “Coke bottle incident”. He actually admitted having not seen the footage but had heard about it, and that was enough for him.

I hate that. It is indicative of someone more interesting in arguing or bad mouthing NASA than actually getting to the truth. He wants to believe in the conspiracy theory.

Argument One – Back in the early 1960’s NASA issued a directive to Hollywood that night scenes in films had to contain stars.
Where do you start with this one…? I explained that NASA was not in a position to issue directives to movie studios. But even if they were in a position to do so – why would they? What would be the point - to drum up interest in stars or something? He seemed to think that it was a vital point in “proving” the landing was a fake. I could perhaps understand where he was coming from if stars were visible in the moon photos. I didn’t really get a chance to knock this one aside because he had already interrupted me for his next bombshell.

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Argument Two – The moon doesn’t rotate and it keeps the same face towards us – and nobody can explain why…

I said “I’m not surprised nobody can explain why as it is physically impossible.” He wouldn’t have it – “the moon does not rotate”. And thus begun an excruciating 20 minute explanation of the moon’s rotation and why it is so. At one point I stood him in the middle of the room while I orbited around him. Nothing worked. Like most of these crackpots he wasn’t even interested in learning something. If only I could have emailed it to him with lots of caps-lock I might have been able to swing him. But anyway, what does any of this point have to do with fake landings? Beats me, but apparently NASA or “The Government” or the CIA (who knows, they’re all the same to these people) is knee deep in it.

Oh dear. Don't you just love it when some maroon comes along and things he knows better than all the astronomers in the world?

[TriangleMan]

It kind of sounds like paulie was talking to Rick Sobie. :wink:

[Irishman]

Definition of rotate - it doesn't rotate from our point of view. But yes, it does rotate, at a rate matching it's orbital speed. Ergo, same side to Earth.

[paulie jay]

You know, it's amazing how quickly one's opinion of another person can diminish during the course of one of these coversations. I think I can recognise the glazed eyes in advance these days!

[Peter B]

G'day Paulie Jay

When it comes to the people such as you describe, don't bother with them. If he was so concerned to preserve his theories that he'd interrupt you, it doesn't matter what you say (or try to say!).

Instead, the people who benefit from our explanations are the large majority of the general public who hear about the claims, and don't have the knowledge or thought processes to judge the issue one way or the other.

Now I know my own limitations when it comes to theories outside my areas of knowledge, and I also accept that I don't necessarily know the right questions to ask to sort out the facts from the cow manure. So when I discuss Apollo with people who want to know whether the Moon Hoax is real, I stick to answering their questions simply, point people to good web-sites, like this one, and round it off with a bit of gee-whiz fascination at how amazing the whole project was.

[mid]

If in doubt, call them on it. The "You're talking ****" defence only requires the three words you can get in edgeways, and half the time the idiots are shocked enough to pause a moment, long enough to explain why.

[Glom]

I agree with mid. While we'd like to retain a Vulcan stoicism, when dealing with agressive closed minded fools, you have to be more aggressive to get your point across.

[SpitfireIX]

I agree with mid. While we'd like to retain a Vulcan stoicism, when dealing with agressive closed minded fools, you have to be more aggressive to get your point across.

So you two are advocates of the Penn and Teller approach, then? ;-)

[gethen]

So NASA issued a directive, and no one in Hollywood balked? Pretty funny. Wonder why they didn't do the same for the Kennedy assassination conspiracy. They mangaged to get a movie out about that.
And even if NASA did issue a directive to Hollywood, how does that explain why Michael Moore hasn't made a film blowing the whole conspiracy apart?
That's got to be the stupidest moon hoax "point" yet. You don't even need a rudimentary knowledge of science to see how dumb it is.

[Gregor]

My favorite response to a hoax argument came from my grandfather (he was an electrical engineer in the 60's and followed the progress of NASA intently. He was very proud of what they accomplished.) This much younger person brought up the "lack of capable computer technology in the 60's to send someone to the moon" argument and my grandfather tried to explain that you can't project today's technology (that we can't live without or conceive of doing something so tremendous without) onto a time that never had it. And he was trying to explain how they used the technology they had to accomplish what they did.
Of course, the person had the glazed look and refused to believe it, so my grandfather finally said, "Look, the toilet has only been around for a hundred years but that doesn't mean people didn't [poop] before that."
I got a big kick out of that. =D>

[word edited]

[aurora]

Definition of rotate - it doesn't rotate from our point of view. But yes, it does rotate, at a rate matching it's orbital speed. Ergo, same side to Earth.

Or introduce the topic of libration, that'll really confuse em!

Inconstand Moon

APOD

[PhantomWolf]

Or introduce the topic of libration, that'll really confuse em!

Heh, wow, seems my own animation of the moon's phases wasn't so bad after-all. When it was jumping around like that I figured it was my natural ineptness, but now I see it be supposed to do that.

[paulie jay]

While we'd like to retain a Vulcan stoicism, when dealing with agressive closed minded fools, you have to be more aggressive to get your point across.

Maybe with the help of a big sledgehammer! I usually get very worked up during these kinds of arguments to the point of literally shaking with rage, though I do try to maintain a calm exterior. Those who know me can see the change though! I find it so offensive that these men have risked their lives to accomplish such greatness only to have clueless imbeciles ignorantly brush it all aside with a wave of their hand.

[Ut]

It kind of sounds like paulie was talking to Rick Sobie. :wink:

Hands shaking.
Brain failing.
Tongue sliding to back of throat.
Body beginning to spasm.
Shutdown in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

Why, why, WHY did you have to bring that name up?


When debate breaks down into petty argument, it's fair game to use every resource you have. The key is knowing how and when. If you're feeling a lot of rage, it's probably best to hold back on it until you can get something resembling the upper hand. Otherwise, they're immediately cut off your rant and proclaim themselves victorious because they made you lose your cool. If it's possible, such pent up emotion can work fabulously, especially with an audience, when you already have the other side on their knees. It helps to open up the pipes, and allows for continuous and, if you're good at public debate, convincing argument that simply cannot be interrupted. It ends up being the nail in the coffin. Unfortunately, it will never convince the True Believers. Taking some of them to the Moon itself wouldn't convince them otherwise.

Usually people that use the techniques described in this thread would break down into a hissy fit if you used the same ones in reply. Ignoring the cutoff works well, too. Speak over them. Continue to speak while they attempt to change the subject. If you can do it calmly, but assertively, they'll usually back down or break down. Either way, it'll open the window you need to actually debate your side.

[Peter B]

While we'd like to retain a Vulcan stoicism, when dealing with agressive closed minded fools, you have to be more aggressive to get your point across.

Maybe with the help of a big sledgehammer! I usually get very worked up during these kinds of arguments to the point of literally shaking with rage, though I do try to maintain a calm exterior. Those who know me can see the change though! I find it so offensive that these men have risked their lives to accomplish such greatness only to have clueless imbeciles ignorantly brush it all aside with a wave of their hand.

Well, I've aleady suggested it's not worth bothering with the close-minded fools!

However, if you're determined to keep up with them, and they're determined not to listen, ask them this: "What would convince you that you're wrong?"

If they say nothing will convince them, then it depends whether there are other people present. If it's just you and CMF (close minded fool), then it's definitely time to leave - you're wasting your time otherwise. If there are others present, ask them if they consider that a reasonable response.