Miscellaneous Apollo hoax discussion

[sts60]

There has been not very much in the way of Apollo "hoax" discussion lately. I'd like to ask the moderators to permit an open-ended discussion of whatever Apollo hoax claims people are interested in discussing.

My first item is actually a meta-claim: a former poster here claimed on the JREF forum that this board is basically afraid of his super-duper hoax-bustin' revelations, that one wouldn't be able to post his information here.

This is a testable claim, so let us perform an experiment: Here is the information which supposedly this board will not - must not permit to be seen. Feel free to peruse, but as extended discussion of threads in other forums is frowned upon here, I'll only summarize - it's the usual spammorhea of links to YouTube videos about government conspiracies and whatnot. Some Most are actually related to Apollo, most some are to a variety of unrelated conspiracies which the poster uses as an appeal to generic conspiracy to support his views. The poster has been repeating the same arguments for years, while claiming that the truth is regularly suppressed. But if direct reference is permitted here, then this hoax meta-claim fails.

[Luckmeister]

If the poster has been repeating the same arguments for years, I doubt if any debunking would get through to him and if the arguments are nothing new, aren't they well covered by just referring people to Clavius.org? That's what I usually do with HBs I run into outside of BAUT.

With a quick look at the link, I saw nothing specifically referring to a part of the hoax discussion that supposedly is not allowed at BAUT and I don't want to look at all the YouTube videos or 126 pages of thread posts to find it. The only thing I can think of is if it violates the no politics rule.

Also, I would think an open-ended single-thread metadiscussion at BAUT without effective compartmentalization would become increasingly difficult to sift through as it grows.

[Swift]

Also, I would think an open-ended single-thread metadiscussion at BAUT without effective compartmentalization would become increasingly difficult to sift through as it grows.

Good point, and I can't say I'm loving this whole idea. If this person wants to come here and debate, great, but remotely picking apart his stuff seems unsportsmanlike. But we can see how it goes. I think people are jonesing for some CT.

By the way, if any Hoax Believers are tempted to use this thread to advocate their position - Don't! Start your own thread if you are going to advocate.

[sts60]

The most important thing is that the information is available directly from David C/rocky/FatFreddy88/cosmored/etc. by following the link above. I'm not particularly interested in the dreck itself. But its existence by reference on this forum directly falsifies his claim that his "information" would not be allowed here. Anyway, I have doubts this thread will really grow, since I'm not going to simply bash someone who's not here (and that is against the rules anyway). Thanks, mods, for the indulgence.

[Hornblower]

I recommend that we marginalize this Apollo hoax stuff by refraining from initiating any discussion of it.

[gwiz]

The guy has got nowhere on any of the non-woo forums he has joined. He has just been completely humiliated in a poll on one of his claims at JREF.

Ignore him.

[Luckmeister]

The guy has got nowhere on any of the non-woo forums he has joined. He has just been completely humiliated in a poll on one of his claims at JREF.

Ignore him.

I think one aspect of delusion is taking pride in being the only one who believes something rather than experiencing humiliation. Even without money involved, if people broadcast their beliefs enough, they will attract a small group of followers who think they're a genius; the internet is tailor-made for that. Also, if one is selling something, any publicity, even negative, can increase sales. If that weren't the case, drug companies wouldn't have successful TV ads containing 15 seconds of positive info and 45 seconds of listing the many possible horrible side-effects.

[gwiz]

I think one aspect of delusion is taking pride in being the only one who believes something rather than experiencing humiliation.

In this case, his claim was that the majority of people watching rather than participating in the thread agreed with him. The poll showed that they didn't.

[glappkaeft]

Ahh a new version of the old USENET classic, "the lurkers support me via private email".

[LaurelHS]

Ahh a new version of the old USENET classic, "the lurkers support me via private email".

We need a link to some song lyrics here.

[Luckmeister]

We need a link to some song lyrics here.

That is sooooo good!

[R.A.F.]

We need a link to some song lyrics here.

Why is it when I read this lyric....

My lurkers will post round my throne.

...I think of a toilet?

[captain swoop]

If this is the future direction of this I will close it. Does anyone have anything constructive to add?

[sts60]

I have no objection. The existence of this thread proves its point.

[R.A.F.]

If this is the future direction of this I will close it.

I apologize for my "attempt" at humor.

[vonmazur]

I think, of course this is just my opinion, that a lot of HB'ers are suffering from Aspbergers' Syndrome, or some other psychological deficit...Any criticism just reinforces this condition....I have no good idea on what to do with this situation...

Dale

[HenrikOlsen]

I think that's a base slander of people with Asperger's·

[Swift]

I think, of course this is just my opinion, that a lot of HB'ers are suffering from Aspbergers' Syndrome, or some other psychological deficit...Any criticism just reinforces this condition....I have no good idea on what to do with this situation...

Dale

I think that's a base slander of people with Asperger's·

OK, now we're done.

Accussing people of a "psychological deficit", even if the are hoax believers, is inappropriate, and just comes across as a slam on those we may disagree with.

If someone has a real good reason to reopen this thread, Report this post, but you will need a real, real good reason.

[Swift]

Thread reopened upon a request to add a relevant comment. Anything else inappropriate, and it will be closed again.

[Sticks]

I have been diagnosed with Aspergers and I am not a HB, in fact I made two videos myself debunking their claims here and here

To assume we are all HB's is a generalisation which is wrong and insulting

[Jeff Root]

The assertion was the other way around: Not that people
with Asperger's syndrome tend to be hoax believers, but
that hoax believers tend to have Asperger's syndrome.
Probably very few people who have Asperger's syndrome
would be considered hoax believers.

I don't know whether I have it myself, since I've never
asked for a diagnosis when I had the opportunity, but a
friend, referring to the community of people interested in
space, science, science fiction, and technology ("nerds")
replied to me when I asked her a question about it ten
or twelve years ago that "We all have Asperger's."

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Swift]

The assertion was the other way around: Not that people
with Asperger's syndrome tend to be hoax believers, but
that hoax believers tend to have Asperger's syndrome.
Probably very few people who have Asperger's syndrome
would be considered hoax believers.

Frankly, either way, it was stated as an extraordinary claim/opinion with no proof.

Now, with moderator mode on - I thinking this is a very borderline topic for discussion on BAUT. I'll leave this thread open for the moment, but it is on thin ice.

[Eclogite]

Let's set aside talk of Aspergers. However, it strikes me as probable - based largely on personal observation and a passing knowledge of psychology - that those who readily accept conspiracy theories in general have a particular way of viewing the world and reaching conclusions about it that differ from those with a scientific education, or a passion for science.

Consequently, seeking to make the case that there was no hoax by approaching this as a science problem is likely to fail. We can mount well researched, evidentially substantiated, logically presented arguments that will be wholly convincing to those who are already convinced, but do nothing for the 'believers'. Why? Because they are believers. We are assaulting there belief system with facts and since the two are at odds our facts must be wrong, or lies, which only goes to prove that there must be a conspiracy. It is circular, it is illogical and it is very real.

Therefore, as Vonzamur suggests, there is no easy way of changing their minds and perhaps the best we can hope for is to minimise the confusion of others by patiently repeating the logical arguments against the hoax believers at every opportunity. (And by avodiing insulting them, since I never found and argument could be won which opened with the lines "I think you are an idiot and another thing....")

[R.A.F.]

In this case, his claim was that the majority of people watching rather than participating in the thread agreed with him. The poll showed that they didn't.

He flat-out denies the accuracy of those results...without providing any evidence except his "beliefs".


Hate to say that it is "typical", behavior, but I seem to be seeing more of it when it comes to "alternative" thinkers.

[R.A.F.]

....and since when did flat out denial become some sort of debate "tactic"? It is the equilivent of sticking one's fingers, in one's ears, and saying naw, naw naw, naw...

[Gillianren]

I've said it before, and I've said it again. Blaming conspiracist thinking on Asperger's, or indeed any mental disorder, is far too simple. There are probably some HBs who have it and probably plenty more who don't. There are HBs (I name no names) who probably think the way they do because of paranoid schizophrenia. And there are probably plenty who are completely neurochemically healthy and have other reasons for their belief. It's a pattern of behaviour, but the causes for that pattern are not universal. Not anywhere near it.

[slang]

....and since when did flat out denial become some sort of debate "tactic"?

November 2nd, 1972. Apparently Kaysing published in 1974. It simply cannot be coincidence.

[Swift]

It simply cannot be coincidence.

Yes it is.

[ravens_cry]

Yes it is.

I believe the appropriate meme response is to mention that I have perceived what you have done in this post, or something of that ilk.

[Jeff Root]

The weird thing is that I thought of that sketch a few
hours ago, about the time that slang and Swift posted.
I doubt I've thought of it in the previous six months.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis