Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 51

Thread: HBs and astronomy in general

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    519

    HBs and astronomy in general

    Hi. I was curious if anyone had ever bumped into a Apollo Hoax believer who actually had an abiding interest in astronomy or space history in general, or even owned a backyard telescope. I've come across Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists and holocaust deniers who seem to have a deep interest in World War II (despite their blind spot on certain subjects). But the impression I get from the postings of HBs is that if you remove the intrigue of any conspiracy, their interest in astronomy or space exploration in general pretty much ranges from apathy to outright disdain. This lack of interest of anything space-related outside of their favorite sphere of cover-up would seem to explain why so many get seem to get caught flat-footed on subjects like the existence of the Gemini program or that fact that most of the world's telescopes are not in the secretive hands of government agencies. Or it leads to face palming statements like "Given the complete lack of air resistance, shouldn’t things actually fall faster on the Moon?"

    Or am over-generalizing them as a group?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Selenite View Post
    Or am over-generalizing them as a group?
    Personally, I don't think so. If a person is familiar with astronomy, and space related endeauvours...how science "works", etc. they would have to deny their own knowledge to believe that Apollo was hoaxed.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,406
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Personally, I don't think so. If a person is familiar with astronomy, and space related endeauvours...how science "works", etc. they would have to deny their own knowledge to believe that Apollo was hoaxed.
    There are Moon landing hoax believers and hoax theory designers. I think almost all believers have a poor knowledge of photography and/or astronomy and/or basic physics. They will sometimes concede points made by debunkers. Hoax designers rarely (if ever) concede debunkers' points. I would bet that most of them know more about the science that disproves their claims than they admit to. They put on blinders whenever anything is brought up that threatens their egos, books, videos, website hits and lecture tickets.
    "There are powers in this universe beyond anything you know. There is much you have to learn. Go to your homes. Go and give thought to the mysteries of the universe. I will leave you now, in peace." --Galaxy Being

  4. #4
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,690
    Well dastardly had an interest in the stars, at least from the perspective of using them for navigation.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,922
    I am inclined to think that 100% of people who genuinely doubt the moon landings do so because of ignorance - and I use the word in the non-judgemental sense. They've seen the Fox "documentary", or heard about it from that bloke down the pub, and they think they are now "in the know".

    You can confirm this by asking them to name any four people involved in the moon landings. "Neil Armstrong. Buzz Lightyear. Neil... oh, I said him already. There wasn't anyone else, was there?"

    I'll never forget the time at work when one otherwise very intelligent lady dismissed the moon landings, and an older male colleague said, "Oh, I think we can be sure they sent unmanned missions." He actually thought he was being the man of reason finding a middle position between our two viewpoints!

    I think I succeeded in convincing the lady in question when I later showed her footage of the lunar rover kicking up dust which immediately settled again, and compared it to the billowing dust that a landrover kicks up.
    Last edited by Paul Beardsley; 2012-Mar-17 at 06:03 PM. Reason: Removed accidental carriage returns.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,413
    I've ended up being that bloke down the pub rather more times than is healthy for me, it's an interesting exercise in mental proficiency to make a clear concise argument for the moon landings after several pints of Guinness.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  7. #7
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Beardsley View Post
    I am inclined to think that 100% of people who genuinely doubt the moon landings do so because of ignorance - and I use the word in the non-judgemental sense. They've seen the Fox "documentary", or heard about it from that bloke down the pub, and they think they are now "in the know".

    You can confirm this by asking them to name any

    four people involved in the moon landings. "Neil Armstrong. Buzz Lightyear. Neil... oh, I said him already. There wasn't anyone else, was there?"

    I'll never forget the time at work when one otherwise very intelligent lady dismissed the moon landings, and an older male colleague said, "Oh, I think we can be sure they sent unmanned missions." He actually thought he was being the man of reason finding a middle position between our two viewpoints!

    I think I succeeded in convincing the lady in question when I later showed her footage of the lunar rover kicking up dust which immediately settled again, and compared it to the billowing dust that a landrover kicks up.
    Hmm, yes. If things are gonna get real, a good start will be an entry test.

    "You are smearing 12 men who walked on the Moon as frauds. Do them courtesy of naming three of them."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Beardsley View Post
    You can confirm this by asking them to name any

    four people involved in the moon landings. "Neil Armstrong. Buzz Lightyear. Neil... oh, I said him already. There wasn't anyone else, was there?"
    Or the yahoo who says star should be visible in the surface photographs:
    "What was the shutter speed they used on the cameras?"
    "Uhhhh."
    "Don't know that, huh? Ok, what ISO did they use?"
    "Uhhhh. What's an ISO?"
    "What F-stop did they use for down-Sun photographs?"
    "Uhhhh."

    Or the YouTuber who claims to be an amateur astronomer who posts a video of a UFO:
    "What was the azimuth and elevation of this object?"
    "I don't know what azimuth is but I was about 500 feet above sea level."
    "No, I mean where was this object in relation to true north?"
    "I don't know where north is."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,754
    Quote Originally Posted by Glom View Post
    Well dastardly had an interest in the stars, at least from the perspective of using them for navigation.
    *claimed to have

    He never convinced me.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by Luckmeister View Post
    There are Moon landing hoax believers and hoax theory designers. I think almost all believers have a poor knowledge of photography and/or astronomy and/or basic physics. They will sometimes concede points made by debunkers. Hoax designers rarely (if ever) concede debunkers' points. I would bet that most of them know more about the science that disproves their claims than they admit to. They put on blinders whenever anything is brought up that threatens their egos, books, videos, website hits and lecture tickets.
    Good point. I suppose there are a small number of Hoax proponents who know better or maybe once had a legitimate interest in astronomy, but like the sleazy real estate agent who sells plots in swampland or toxic dumps, they sold out long ago for the fast buck.


    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    *claimed to have

    He never convinced me.
    I always got the impression his sister spoon fed him all his knowledge. Possibly from the Junior Colour Encyclopedia of Space.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Glom View Post
    Well dastardly had an interest in the stars, at least from the perspective of using them for navigation.
    Interest and knowledge can be two very different things.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by FramerDave View Post
    Interest and knowledge can be two very different things.
    Personally, I've found that the more interested I am in a particular subject, the more I want to know about it, therefore becoming "knowledgable" about that subject becomes second nature. It just happens because of that interest.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    13,194
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Personally, I've found that the more interested I am in a particular subject, the more I want to know about it, therefore becoming "knowledgable" about that subject becomes second nature. It just happens because of that interest.
    Indeed! And it's a grand thing!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Birmingham AL
    Posts
    1,182
    Guys: Someone with a lot of time on their hands has to come up with a "Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory" to explain the connections...They could call it "The Usual Suspects" or something like that.....

    This would give me a handy reference guide to Woo....

    Dale

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Selenite View Post
    I always got the impression his sister spoon fed him all his knowledge. Possibly from the Junior Colour Encyclopedia of Space.
    Except the person referenced kept changing, it was only the sister about half the time.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,413
    Quote Originally Posted by vonmazur View Post
    Guys: Someone with a lot of time on their hands has to come up with a "Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory" to explain the connections...They could call it "The Usual Suspects" or something like that.....

    This would give me a handy reference guide to Woo....

    Dale
    Everybody lies, especially if they have any relation to any government. Except me and anyone I vaguely know and/or have heard of on the internet.

    There it is, the grand unified theory of CT.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,458
    I prefer Terror Firma's theory - all conspiracy theories are linked by the meta-conspiracy to make us believe in conspiracies. In the book it is so that we become paranoid and filled with fear which emotion-sucking aliens can then feed off. But that might be disinformation.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,367
    Quote Originally Posted by vonmazur View Post
    Guys: Someone with a lot of time on their hands has to come up with a "Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory" to explain the connections...They could call it "The Usual Suspects" or something like that.....

    This would give me a handy reference guide to Woo....

    Dale
    Well, this was my attempt, the OCTT, or the One Conspiracy Theorist Theory:

    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....-Theory-(OCTT)

    My concept is that so many conspiracy theories sound so much alike, it must be because there is only one conspiracy theorist, and they came up with all the conspiracy theories in existence.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Birmingham AL
    Posts
    1,182
    Guys: The out of print book, by Irving Stang, "High Strangeness By Mail" had some attempt to sort and list the various theories, but this was pre-internet and so much has come out of the woodwork since then....I may have the title wrong, it has been over 25 years since I read it...

    Yes, I agree all of these seem to involve the same thing, psychologically, just different names in the plot, but always the same....and of course, the "Author du Jour", is the only one smart enough to figure it out, and they ALL want money for it...

    Dale

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,847
    Quote Originally Posted by vonmazur View Post
    Guys: Someone with a lot of time on their hands has to come up with a "Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory" to explain the connections...They could call it "The Usual Suspects" or something like that.....

    This would give me a handy reference guide to Woo....

    Dale
    just go get all the dvd's for the entire run if the "X Files" tv series and watch them in one sitting. maybe even watch both of the theatrical movies and the "The Lone Gunmen" spinoff series, too.
    this should get you close to what you are after- especially once you realize about halfway thru that they are just making it up as they go along..

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,550
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    Everybody lies, especially if they have any relation to any government
    Oi, I resent that! People in the government and the military most certainly do not lie when they support CT claims, UFOs, existence of PSI powers or indeed anything paranormal or supernatural!
    The dog, the dog, he's at it again!

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Birmingham AL
    Posts
    1,182

    Lightbulb Already did...

    Quote Originally Posted by novaderrik View Post
    just go get all the dvd's for the entire run if the "X Files" tv series and watch them in one sitting. maybe even watch both of the theatrical movies and the "The Lone Gunmen" spinoff series, too.
    this should get you close to what you are after- especially once you realize about halfway thru that they are just making it up as they go along..
    Novaderrik: I did suffer thru the whole thing, as you have posted...TLG was mystifying to me, as I just did not get it....

    I agree, I think they just took whatever whackamundo theory was floating around, and used it for the current episode....

    Dale

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Selenite View Post
    I always got the impression his sister spoon fed him all his knowledge. Possibly from the Junior Colour Encyclopedia of Space.
    I got a chuckle from your reference by the way, Hol.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,448
    My impression formed over several years is that conspiracy theorists tend to express neither interest nor knowledge unless it is tightly connected to their particular theory. That is, the only astronomy they will learn is the minimal amount to make their beliefs (e.g., UFOs or free energy) seem plausible. In contrast, skeptics tend to express interest and/or knowledge without any specific purpose, hence acquire a more balanced view of the world.

    Good photographic interpreters, for example, look at photos of all kinds of things, and look at the world at large. I often look at some phenomenon live and think how that would look in a photograph and what interesting interpretational questions would arise if all I had was a photograph of the phenomenon. Fringe theorists, I've noticed, do not do this. When I brought this up in some psychology-oriented training, I was told the term for this is "mindfulness." I get where they're coming from; there are times when people, myself included, seem to go about life on some sort of autopilot. We don't notice things just for the sake of it, and this stunts our ability to acquire a broad understanding of the behavior of the natural world. Skeptics seem to be naturally curious. Conspiracy theorists generally do not.

    Therefore I think where you fall on the spectrum of mindfulness determines how susceptible you are to fringe theories.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Selenite View Post
    I've come across Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists and holocaust deniers who seem to have a deep interest in World War II (despite their blind spot on certain subjects).
    I've noticed that about Holocaust Deniers. They seem to have an unhealthy fetish for Nazis and the German war machine in particular. They can often be experts on the makeup on a 1943 Panzer division or how many rounds a MG42 can spit out in a minute, or how many Tiger tanks rolled out of German factories. There's almost a creepy admiration at work.

    Put an Apollo Hoaxer in front of a astronomical refractor and he's lost. Plus, he's convinced that the image being upside down is part of some conspiracy.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Selenite View Post
    Hi. I was curious if anyone had ever bumped into a Apollo Hoax believer who actually had an abiding interest in astronomy or space history in general, or even owned a backyard telescope. I've come across Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists and holocaust deniers who seem to have a deep interest in World War II (despite their blind spot on certain subjects). But the impression I get from the postings of HBs is that if you remove the intrigue of any conspiracy, their interest in astronomy or space exploration in general pretty much ranges from apathy to outright disdain. This lack of interest of anything space-related outside of their favorite sphere of cover-up would seem to explain why so many get seem to get caught flat-footed on subjects like the existence of the Gemini program or that fact that most of the world's telescopes are not in the secretive hands of government agencies. Or it leads to face palming statements like "Given the complete lack of air resistance, shouldn’t things actually fall faster on the Moon?"

    Or am over-generalizing them as a group?
    Selenite, I am sure you are a bright and capable person, but this argument of yours, if I may call it that, is downright silly. Of course there are "HBs" who are genuinely interested in astronomy. Of course there are "HB types" who own and are competent with respect to the operation of scopes. "Apathy" ?, "disdain" ?, really ? This perspective is beyond ridiculous.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,103
    Quote Originally Posted by goodnightsnookieukums View Post
    Of course there are "HBs" who are genuinely interested in astronomy.
    I'm surprised you say that. Most seem to give a good impression of being very ignorant of astronomy, physics, photography, history and most aspects of technology (among other things).

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I'm surprised you say that. Most seem to give a good impression of being very ignorant of astronomy, physics, photography, history and most aspects of technology (among other things).
    The OP's implied point was there are essentially none. Of course it is not true. There are some who are quite interested and capable to boot.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    6,982
    I worked with a guy who thought that Apollo was a hoax and by extension every other space mission was fake. He was a full on believer and I had a great number of interesting conversations with him. He developed a clique of people who hung out with him to talk about it. Those people had a variety of beliefs that did not entirely line up with his. He seemed pretty smart and sincere in his belief. More importantly, he was very socially adept. This lasted a few years, until he jumped on Facebook.

    What occurred on Facebook was ulgy. He started a campaign of sniping. Online, he would make statements on other people's FB walls and say some rather inflammatory things. He would friend responders to his posts and take the fight up with them on their walls. Apparently, he did not see that antagonizing coworkers, their significant others, family members and friends would cause issues back at work. It wasn't long until he was fired. He really kicked a hornet's nest by antagonizing my wife, but thankfully, he must have said something worse to someone else and I wasn't dragged into the whole fiasco.

    His clique didn't modify their at-work behavior much, having done nothing wrong, either in person or online. But almost all of them abandoned Facebook. I am still friends with some of them and the ones I don't associate with simply moved far away and we lost touch.

    I think his issue was that he could not translate face-to-face conversations into the text only format of FB. Had this occurred in person, say in a bar, he would have never gotten in trouble.
    Solfe

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You're only given one little spark of madness. You mustn't lose it." Robin Williams.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,571
    Quote Originally Posted by goodnightsnookieukums View Post
    Selenite, I am sure you are a bright and capable person, but this argument of yours, if I may call it that, is downright silly. Of course there are "HBs" who are genuinely interested in astronomy. Of course there are "HB types" who own and are competent with respect to the operation of scopes. "Apathy" ?, "disdain" ?, really ? This perspective is beyond ridiculous.
    I have yet to encounter an HB who knows anything about essentially any branch of science. Certainly none of them know anything about any branch they are claiming to know well enough to know that it "proves" Apollo (and sometimes all other space travel, and sometimes the Cold War) was faked.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Similar Threads

  1. General As
    By in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 2011-Feb-28, 03:09 AM
  2. General Astronomy Questions
    By jimwaltman in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2009-Jul-01, 05:46 PM
  3. Request for hoax info on "General Astronomy" forum
    By TriangleMan in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2004-Nov-13, 07:30 AM
  4. This is general astronomy
    By oriel36 in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 2003-Oct-22, 08:13 PM
  5. General Astronomy (and Major Science)
    By Charlie in Dayton in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2003-Mar-13, 02:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: