[Split]Moon hoaxes - split from: Mars Voyage too Soon?

[uruk]

Ordinarily I'd agree that your assessment of the circumstances governing the characteristics of the photo seems to be sound, and could well explain what we see in the photo. If you've read Dark Moon, however, (and, no disrespect, but I suspect not, given your seeming predisposition to discount flatly any and all CTs regarding the Apollo missions), you'll be aware that there's a three page detailed study and analysis of the photo in the appendix. The study and analysis was carried out by a Dr David Groves, who is a Chartered Physicist, a member of the Institute of Physics, has a BSc (Hons) Class 1 in Applied Physics and a PhD in holographic computer measurement. By mathematical analysis and calculation he puts the difference in height between the standing positions of the two astronauts at no more than 10cm, which does not account for the height of the centre of the camera's imaging plane, calculated as being at eye level.

Does Groves take into account the local topology of the landing site or does he assume that the astronauts are level with each other. How about the height difference between Neil and Buzz?

 

[Southwind17]

Does Groves take into account the local topology of the landing site or does he assume that the astronauts are level with each other. How about the height difference between Neil and Buzz?

Groves estimated a 'typical' value for the variation in height of the surface between the astronaut and the photographer by reference to the shadow line cast by the outside of the astronaut's left leg, which can be seen to be curved owing to the eneven ground. Groves carried out a detailed calculation and concluded that the maximum height between the two surfaces is in the order of only 10cm.

The complete calculation is in the Appendix to Dark Moon (see - full transparency - no hiding of supporting details!). I'll try to post the full analysis later today.

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind17....Now I realize why you think it's a DREAM for man to get to Mars in 5-7 years. You actually seriously question the moon landings!! Conspiracy theorists and kooks are all over the place. The only thing they show is their gullibility in believing a *VERY FEW* like minded kooks who present a seemingly "credible evidence". They fall in with the fringe group and deny the 99.99% of the population who knows otherwise...yet SOMEHOW think THEY are right and the 99% are wrong!!
Did you ever think when 99.99999% of a humungous group believes something to be factual based on credible evidence that it's true?
If you tell your non belief to people you meet in person, with a serious face, they're gonna think you're off your rocker.
Word of advice. Stop the silly childishness and be an intelligent person and just accept the obvious fact as being fact.

But I'm sure you'll come back with some, what you think is, some whitty smart commen,
claiming that YOU'RE right and everyone else is wrong. You might even name s scientist (they can be kooks too, ya know) or a doctor (yikes) who says or wrote that. Not that the 10,000 reputable scientests who all agree that it happened means anything to you. You seem to enjoy the odd person who has the strangely differring view point from everyone else, even when incredible amounts of verifiable evidence is presented to him.

Oh....but I forgot. There's them bigfoots and Nessies out there too that people have seen. They all GOTTA be real, right? Too many eye witnesses (even if there isn't any scientific evidence to back it) But I know..you saw a show on TV that said so and so...

If you want, you can have the last word. It's useless presenting you with facts.

Allow me to present you with some 'facts' from Wikipedia:

Many commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims. According to a 1999 poll conducted by the The Gallup Organization, what Gallup termed an "overwhelming majority" of the US public, some 89 percent, did not believe the landing was faked, while 6 percent did, while 5 percent were undecided.

So that's 11% of the US population who remain to be convinced. What's that in numbers of people?

Doesn't quite equate to the 99%, 99.99% or 99.99999% (would you care to posit 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999%?) that you state, presumably as fact, above does it.

Would you like a napkin with that runny egg sir?!

 

[articulett]

At TAM they gave a good conference where they discussed the supposed documentary that seemed to make a pretty convincing case that man didn't walk on the moon-- it appears to have made doubters out of a lot of people... But it was silly pseudoscience made to hone in on peoples' penchant for conspiracy-- always a big seller-- and it does make astronauts very angry because this is a real live scientific marvel and like always-- lies are getting the glory while the aspersions are cast as science and truth.

Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy book and website give a thorough debunking of that documentary but he also gave a fabulous talk and demonstration at TAM5 and the guys from the Onion were hysterical. I have students come up to me all the time asking about the shadows or the waving flag, and I'm glad to have the answers-- this silliness seems to have convinced a lot of people. The lack of stars is another one. When you believe in a conspiracy, it seems so easy to invent evidence.

The problem with conspiracy theorists is that when you ask what would convince them, they don't have an answer. They have silly questions... and then when they don't like your explanation, they have another silly query. And it becomes clear that no amount of evidence could convince them-- therefore, they have a faith based claim. On the other hand, what would it take to convince me scientists didn't walk on the moon-- one astronaut involved in the "plot" confessing details of how they did what. Conspiracy theorists like creationists want you to "explain this" or "explain that" (as if they had the basic scientific understanding to understand your explanations)-- but they never explain anything regarding their alternative theories... it's just one more unlikely proposition upon another. You'd think it we were going to fake a moon landing than one of the hundred or more people involved that would need to be in it on would give detailed explanations of what was done and how rather than kooks examining things closely for hints of things we can't explain. Think of the money that could be made. But humans love their mysteries and conspiracies and don't have time for learning facts about the real wonders brought to us by science. When someone believes something and they cannot tell you what it would take to change that belief-- then you are dealing with faith. And faith isn't really amenable to logic or reason is it?

Before discussing the topic with someone, I think you can save a lot of time by asking what it would take to convince a person. I think it's important to have both parties concede that there is one truth and that the aim should be to find that truth. The truth isn't open to debate-- it can only be discovered and understood. And lots of people would rather believe they understand that truth rather than find out they may have been fooled.

I don't like the way belief systems make people trust "nonsense" and distrust science. They question the wrong sources. Scientific facts and evidence are available to everyone, after all.

 

[Belz...]

Alright then, Southwind. Let's start over. What, exactly, makes you unconvinced, now ?

 

[uruk]

Groves estimated a 'typical' value for the variation in height of the surface between the astronaut and the photographer by reference to the shadow line cast by the outside of the astronaut's left leg, which can be seen to be curved owing to the eneven ground. Groves carried out a detailed calculation and concluded that the maximum height between the two surfaces is in the order of only 10cm.

The complete calculation is in the Appendix to Dark Moon (see - full transparency - no hiding of supporting details!). I'll try to post the full analysis later today.

So in other words he made a guess-timation based on his interpretation of a picture. Right, Highly scientific.

Maybe he should have tried to locate a topological map of the area for more accurate calculations.
He could have tried here if he was serious about his work.
http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/apollosci.htm

 

[Southwind17]

You'd think it we were going to fake a moon landing than one of the hundred or more people involved that would need to be in it on would give detailed explanations of what was done and how rather than kooks examining things closely for hints of things we can't explain. Think of the money that could be made.

I consider this aspect probably the most compelling against the CT. But I don't consider it impossible that a cover up could occur. The chances of this happening are very slim, but not impossible. Hence my slight doubt, as I expressed earlier.

I don't think you're in a good position to talk.

I'm sorry Belz, I'm struggling to see the immoral, unethical tactics in my style of argument. Did I miss something?

You still said you weren't convinced. I don't see how the rest of your paragraph makes you more convinced than you said you were.

As I wrote before, conviction is an absolute. I'll be convinced when I get to 100% (and that's your version of 100%, not mine, so don't interpret that as my suggesting that I'm incapable of becoming convinced, I am).

Reported.

Fair enough. I guess some people are of a more sensitive disposition than others. But take the time to review your own infractions before calling foul!

Seems you missed every single one of my posts, so far.

Good to see you agree with my analysis of your personality!

Funny, your contributions in the intelligent evolution thread seemed to indicate a different person. You wouldn't be suffering from MPD, would you ?

No, that thread had some good, sensible, intelligent, civil debate. When I join a thread that has posters like this one does (let's just call them: hyper-reactive, hyper-sensitive, unobjective, condescending, sarcastic, patronizing, and with a predisposition to criticize (or any combination thereof)), well, I guess I just get drawn into 'going with the flow', to a degree! And it's strange how they can't stand the taste of their own medicine!

Alright then, Southwind. Let's start over. What, exactly, makes you unconvinced, now ?

By 'start over' do you mean a sensible, civil debate like the Intelligent Evolution thread (and I mean the useful debating part when I say that) with all the unhelpful features listed above removed? If so, I'm happy to do that, but as I've written above, I'm not here to try to make the CT case again. My focus is on the analysis of some of the evidence that the CT has presented, i.e. those aspects that cause my slight doubt. I suppose if we were to debunk all of those satisfactorily then I'd probably become convinced. Your call buddy. We could 'start over' with the Aldrin photo first, if you like?

So in other words he made a guess-timation based on his interpretation of a picture. Right, Highly scientific.

OK, if you want to be cynical and call it a guess-timate fair enough. But please realize that any estimate of absolutely anything is not 100% accurate by definition. The difference between something labelled as an estimate and a guess-timate usually just boils down to the inherent level of accuracy. I assume you've studied Groves' analysis?!?

And as for Groves using the picture as a basis for analyzing the picture(!!!), well, I'm sure he'd hate to miss the opportunity to beg your pardon! Exactly what, instead of the picture, do you reasonably expect could be used to prove or disporove an apparent anomaly within the picture? Let's see shall we:

Maybe he should have tried to locate a topological map of the area for more accurate calculations.
He could have tried here if he was serious about his work.
http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/apollosci.htm

We're talking about a topological variation over a horizontal distance of only 3.847m on a position of the lunar surface that isn't known exactly. I'll check out your link later, but does it afford the necessary information for a more accurate calculation than Groves' i.e. something other than a 'guess-timate'? I'll tell you what, why don't you go ahead and perform the calculation for us (we don't need Groves to do it, do we, his background, experience and qualifications clearly count for nothing!). I look forward to studying your results!

 

[Belz...]

Fair enough. I guess some people are of a more sensitive disposition than others.

There has to be a name for that fallacy.

Good to see you agree with my analysis of your personality!

Dammit, Southwind, what is it with you and people who tell you your opinions are ridiculous ? Never happened before ? Well, get ready, because on this forum it's bound to happen. A lot. Happens to me, all the time.

My focus is on the analysis of some of the evidence that the CT has presented, i.e. those aspects that cause my slight doubt. I suppose if we were to debunk all of those satisfactorily then I'd probably become convinced. Your call buddy. We could 'start over' with the Aldrin photo first, if you like?

Which "Aldrin" photo would that be ?

Just as a side note, I've never seen any evidence brought about by moon hoaxers that has ever even made me doubt that man has gone to the moon. Every picture or factoid I've seen I've either been able to debunk on my own or with 5 minutes of googling. I hope your 'evidence' will be more convincing.

 

[Southwind17]

There has to be a name for that fallacy.

What 'fallacy'?

Dammit, Southwind, what is it with you and people who tell you your opinions are ridiculous ? Never happened before ? Well, get ready, because on this forum it's bound to happen. A lot. Happens to me, all the time.

Belz, you're getting yourself unnecessarily het up. Calm down. I don't have any problem whatsoever with anybody telling me my opinions are ridiculous. I do, however, tend to become irritated, though, when such people:

• quote me essentially out of context to try to discredit me or my opinions; and/or
• seek to ridicule my opinions simply based on their opinions; and/or
• believe it's my opinions that they're seeking to ridicule when, actually, I'm asserting something other than my opinions; and/or
• harbour such strong convinctions that they're incapable of allowing for the possibility, regardless of how remote, that my opinions might actually have some merit; and/or
• harbour such strong convictions that they default to an extremely defensive position that precludes them from even considering the possibility that they might not be 100% correct themselves; and/or ...

I could go on, but hopefully you get the message.

I have noticed that there are some subjects inevitably arising on these forum for which, on certain suggestions associated therewith, the ensuing 'debate' on the part of those refuting such suggestions very quickly, if not immediately, becomes obviouly driven almost wholly by passion and high emotion, as opposed to rational, logical, civilized objectivity. This usually manifests as mockery, sarcasm, condescension, ad hominem comments and derogation. Two such subjects are homosexuality and conspiracy theories. Interestingly, theism, deism, agnosticism and the like seem not to solicit such responses, at least not to the same degree.

After I cited the Wikipedia poll earlier I realized that, given the propensity for Americans' belief in god, a large proportion, possibly the majority, of respondents who registered their belief that man has landed on the Moon probably also believe in god. In any event, I would like to bet that the proportion of those who registered their belief that man has landed on the Moon who also believe in god is far higher than those who registered otherwise. What does this suggest? It suggests, at least to me, that a large proportion of people who believe man landed on the Moon have formed that belief not on any rational, objective consideration of the pros and cons in the light of a possible conspiracy, but on blind faith; faith in the US Government of the time, and by extension NASA, not wishing to deceive the World in pursuit of immeasurable political gain. To such people, the idea that such a conspiracy could even be contemplated by the Government is wholly implausible and outrageous. The patriotism that the Apollo Moon landings instil in most Americans is comparable with the faith that belief in god instils, and any suggestion, let alone evidence, that the Moon landings were staged is, to many, tantamount to presenting evidence for the non-existence of god. Faith is what holds the belief, no matter how compelling the nature or weight of evidence.

Now, you'll probably throw another fallacy category at me (you seem to like your fallacy pidgeon holes, as they ostensibly afford a ready-made defence), probably along the lines of belief on god or otherwise having absolutley no relationship or correlation with belief in Apollo. Technically, you'd probably be right, if you did, but what I'm trying to show here, is not that a high proportion of 'informed' disbelievers necessarily equates to falsity, but what drives the resistance to allegations of foul play in connection with the Apollo Moon landings.

Allow me to summarize my position, in the context of the foregoing, based on what I've written earlier in the thread:

• Evidence has been presented by various people that identifies seeming anomalies in some of the Apollo records and data. Some of that evidence seems valid.
• Such evidence has been challenged and refuted by various people. Much of the refutation relies on study and analysis of a far lesser degree than the original evidence presented, or is refuted on theoretical grounds only.
• Taking into account the claims and counterclaims there seems to be some doubt as to the genuineness of some of the Apollo records and data.
• On balance, with regard to the evidence for and against, and the circumstances, I'd say man has probably landed on the moon. I'd give it a 95% probability to show my degree of 'conviction', but as a meaningful measure that's a somewhat arbitrary figure.
• I'd like to see further objective analysis and debate regarding the evidence presented against the Apollo Moon landings that has not been conclusively refuted.

That's all; nothing more.

Which "Aldrin" photo would that be ?

It would be the one introduced by me in Post #86, discussed (and linked to) in Posts #87 and #88 and again specifically linked to very kindly by Thabiguy in Post #91 (Thanks Thabiguy, that's a beautiful full-colour reproduction).

Just as a side note, I've never seen any evidence brought about by moon hoaxers that has ever even made me doubt that man has gone to the moon. Every picture or factoid I've seen I've either been able to debunk on my own or with 5 minutes of googling. I hope your 'evidence' will be more convincing.

I can only draw your attention to or re-present evidence already in existence. As I've said, I'm not here to try to present the case again, or my own case. I believe you've never seen the Groves study and analysis of the Aldrin photo though, have you? I've asked the Forum organisers if it's OK to post it. If they say yes you'll be able to see it on Sunday.

 

[Southwind17]

Maybe he should have tried to locate a topological map of the area for more accurate calculations.
He could have tried here if he was serious about his work.
http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/apollosci.htm

I've just perused this website, which essentially just contains links to documents. Working down the list of linked documents, it's not obvious which comprise or contain the detailed topographical maps of the loction where the Aldrin photo was taken to which you allude. Would you be so kind as to direct me to it/them, to save me having to open and examine the long list of linked documents. Thank you in anticipation.

 

[Belz...]

What 'fallacy'?

Saying "Fair enough. I guess some people are of a more sensitive disposition than others.", instead of just "fair enough", when I mentioned I had reported your post. Obviously, you seem to think it serves your "side" to insinuate that I reported your post because I have a "more sensitive disposition" than you do, rather than for violation of the forum rules.

quote me essentially out of context to try to discredit me or my opinions

Out of context ? You said you were unconvinced. What exactly does that mean, if not exactly what it says ? I did read the rest of your paragraph, but it in no way nullifies or alters the first sentence.

seek to ridicule my opinions simply based on their opinions

So you... have no problem with me telling you that your opinion is ridiculous... but you have a problem when I ridicule your opinion ? Is there a difference ?

And, no. It's not because it's MY opinion. It's a fact.

believe it's my opinions that they're seeking to ridicule when, actually, I'm asserting something other than my opinions

If it's not what you believe, then perhaps you shouldn't say "I" when saying it.

harbour such strong convinctions that they're incapable of allowing for the possibility, regardless of how remote, that my opinions might actually have some merit

I did consider the possibility, and rejected it, several years ago. Moreover, I don't know how you can tell how strong my convictions are by reading a single sentence like "feel free to join reality".

harbour such strong convictions that they default to an extremely defensive position that precludes them from even considering the possibility that they might not be 100% correct themselves

Oh, that was not a defense, trust me. It was an attack.

I could go on, but hopefully you get the message.

Yes. You have a problem with people telling you your opinions are ridiculous.

I have noticed that there are some subjects inevitably arising on these forum for which, on certain suggestions associated therewith, the ensuing 'debate' on the part of those refuting such suggestions very quickly, if not immediately, becomes obviouly driven almost wholly by passion and high emotion, as opposed to rational, logical, civilized objectivity.

We call those woo-woos. Seriously, though. I have no passion about any of those subjects, though I suppose you could say that ignorance does get me somewhat emotional.

This usually manifests as mockery, sarcasm, condescension, ad hominem comments and derogation.

Unfortunately for you, any number of reasons result in mockery, sarcasm, condescension, ad hominem comments and derogation, so I don't think they indicate that I, or anybody else, has no argument. I'm sure you realise that, when confronted with a claim that has been debunked over and over and over, someone like me might be inclined to answer in short strikes rather than long posts. Something along the lines of "read a book", for example.

Two such subjects are homosexuality and conspiracy theories.

I can't remember the last time homosexuality caused such a ruckus while I was there.

After I cited the Wikipedia poll earlier I realized that, given the propensity for Americans' belief in god, a large proportion, possibly the majority, of respondents who registered their belief that man has landed on the Moon probably also believe in god.

Well, isn't that a nice, plump tautology, since most respondents were Americans !

What does this suggest? It suggests, at least to me, that a large proportion of people who believe man landed on the Moon have formed that belief not on any rational, objective consideration of the pros and cons in the light of a possible conspiracy, but on blind faith

That is indeed a possibility. After all, I'm sure there are plenty of non-skeptical atheists out there. They were simply raised that way just like theists were. However, since I'm sure you are aware of the argument from belief, you must know that it works both ways. Just because someone doesn't have reasons to believe in something, doesn't mean that something isn't true, so the belief itself is not an argument, either way.

faith in the US Government of the time, and by extension NASA, not wishing to deceive the World in pursuit of immeasurable political gain.

That amounts to the CTers argument that goes like this "well, I guess you think goverments never lie, right ?". Of course, it's a dodge, designed to draw attention away from the argument. The evidence shows we went to the moon. Politics has nothing to do with it.

Now, you'll probably throw another fallacy category at me (you seem to like your fallacy pidgeon holes, as they ostensibly afford a ready-made defence)

The only people who don't like fallacies being mentioned are those who use them.

On balance, with regard to the evidence for and against, and the circumstances, I'd say man has probably landed on the moon. I'd give it a 95% probability to show my degree of 'conviction', but as a meaningful measure that's a somewhat arbitrary figure.

95% and you're still "uncertain" ? I suppose, if you think "certain" means that you're 100%, ironclad sure, then you're uncertain about everything, making the word completely worthless.

That's all; nothing more.

Well, that clears it up.

 

[uruk]

OK, if you want to be cynical and call it a guess-timate fair enough. But please realize that any estimate of absolutely anything is not 100% accurate by definition. The difference between something labelled as an estimate and a guess-timate usually just boils down to the inherent level of accuracy. I assume you've studied Groves' analysis?!?

To be honest, no. Ive been waiting to see if you will be able to post his work. The point I was making is that if his initial numbers are off so will the results.

[qoute]And as for Groves using the picture as a basis for analyzing the picture(!!!), well, I'm sure he'd hate to miss the opportunity to beg your pardon! Exactly what, instead of the picture, do you reasonably expect could be used to prove or disporove an apparent anomaly within the picture? Let's see shall we:[/quote] Well the problem is that what can be seen from a single picture limits you. You are missing information, depth being one. Its easy to missinterpret.
Did he use other pictures of the area where the picture was taken to help extapolate the height?

We're talking about a topological variation over a horizontal distance of only 3.847m on a position of the lunar surface that isn't known exactly. I'll check out your link later, but does it afford the necessary information for a more accurate calculation than Groves' i.e. something other than a 'guess-timate'? I'll tell you what, why don't you go ahead and perform the calculation for us (we don't need Groves to do it, do we, his background, experience and qualifications clearly count for nothing!). I look forward to studying your results!

There were at least three small craters near the landing site. I'd have to look deeper into the documentation to find the measurments.

Hey, you don't have to get upset. I'm just questioning his assumptions.
It would be good if you could post his calculations

 

[Southwind17]

To be honest, no. Ive been waiting to see if you will be able to post his work. The point I was making is that if his initial numbers are off so will the results.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'initial numbers', but hopefully I can post the analysis tomorrow and we can take it from there. I'm as keen as anybody to hear what people have to say about the analysis.

Well the problem is that what can be seen from a single picture limits you. You are missing information, depth being one. Its easy to missinterpret. Did he use other pictures of the area where the picture was taken to help extapolate the height?

I agree, but I suspect, given that Aldrin and Armstrong were the only two astronauts allegedly on the moon at that time taking photos, that no other photos exist that can be used to help corroborate the photo under question. Groves' analysis is rather thorough, though.

Hey, you don't have to get upset. I'm just questioning his assumptions.
It would be good if you could post his calculations

I'm not getting upset in the slightest. Whilst you'd now like it to be seen that you're 'just questioning his assumptions', your earlier wording does, clearly, infer an absence of sincerety, which I consider disingenuous given that you have yet to set eyes on the analysis:

So in other words he made a guess-timation based on his interpretation of a picture. Right, Highly scientific.

Maybe he should have tried to locate a topological map of the area for more accurate calculations.
He could have tried here if he was serious about his work.

 

[Belz...]

So, Southwind. I'm still waiting ...

 

[VonNeumann]

At TAM they gave a good conference where they discussed the supposed documentary that seemed to make a pretty convincing case that man didn't walk on the moon-- it appears to have made doubters out of a lot of people... But it was silly pseudoscience made to hone in on peoples' penchant for conspiracy-- always a big seller-- and it does make astronauts very angry because this is a real live scientific marvel and like always-- lies are getting the glory while the aspersions are cast as science and truth.

I worked for NASA during the Apollo program. Of course all the stupid stuff I more recently saw suggesting conspiracy can easily be dismissed out of hand. But then when I am challenged by a CT-ist, I always bring up the fact that it would be impossible to fool the people working on the project - I was there. Subsequently, I worked on development of the communications switch that replaced the earlier communications switch that went (1975) into Cheyenne Mountain. I watched data from ALSEP (Apollo Lunar Scientific Experiment Package) come through there -- that would have been hard to fake. Nevertheless, I believe we should all be vigilant and prepared to be skeptical of baloney we are fed because there ARE conspiracies. Beware those who say "there are NO conspiracies". Although I think Rush Limbaugh says that just to keep people from calling him a kook. I know of a couple good war stories from those days but I think it could just be categorized at "politics as usual" rather than "conspiracy".

On this OP, I think one thing I didn't see mentioned that is important w.r.t. a trip to Mars is the potential of heavy nuclei bombarding the astronauts at near light speed. Just how many holes can you stand to have in your brain and body before you go nuts or get cancer? The few years round trip allows a lot of time for severe damage and the nuclei may already render the astronauts useless before they get to Mars.

 

[drzeus99]

Allow me to present you with some 'facts' from Wikipedia:



So that's 11% of the US population who remain to be convinced. What's that in numbers of people?

Doesn't quite equate to the 99%, 99.99% or 99.99999% (would you care to posit 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999%?) that you state, presumably as fact, above does it.

Would you like a napkin with that runny egg sir?!

I know I said I'd give you the last word, but you did ask me a question, and
I feeled compelled to explain something to you, along the lines of logic and reason.

No runny eggs at all. My statement claiming 99% would be of *reasonable,
intelligent people". Sorry I didn't clarify that. I wrongly assumed you would know what I meant. No reason to include the dummies..makes no sense.

Your numbers would come out to:
Umm...33 million misinformed people? (but the poll doesn't include the
children of the population, so that number might be 20 million misinformed
people). Doesn't surprise me one bit. Even if it was that much, there's a certain % of the population that are plain old dummies. A rather sizeable % at that too.

But 99% would be of intelligent people. I'd hardly call every poll taker "intelligent" or even reasonable.,


You state that some Gallup poll of Americans claim that 5% of Americans are not convinced that man landed on the moon, and another 6% were undecided, correct?

First off, the day I let OTHERS do the thinking for me is the day I'm dead. IOW, NEVER. What type of simple minded sheep would let OTHERS decide what they should think or what they should believe in? Answer me that!

2nd, I don't think any poll in the history of the world, when asked of a large enough # of people (let's say 10,000 or even as little as 100 people) has EVER or WILL EVER result in a 100% similar response. If you polled 10,000 random people on the streets of any major city and asked them if they believed the world was flat or round, you STILL WOULDN'T GET 100% of the people to agree.

If you didn't know, not everyone has a stable mind, and many more people have stable minds but are irrational. It's delusional to think that you would get a 100% (or even 98%) response when asking ANY question, let alone one that is already part of a mythical "conspiracy theory".

(Hence my not including this % of the population when I came up with my estimate.)

If you randomly sampled a large number of people, you can present them with any question that has entered the conspiracy theory world and NEVER EVER get more than 98% to go along with the popular, accepted believe.

You could ask if Elvis is still alive, if aliens abduct people, if <insert your favorite mysterious creature here> exists, if spirits exist, if people can bend spoons with their mind, if people can contact the dead, if people can use their minds to levitate, if psychics can truly defy the laws of physics....etc.

You can even ask people if blood is red, and still not get 100% of the respondents to agree. You'll have people SWEAR that blood is blue (look
at the veins in their arms) and claim that "when it hits oxygen, it turns red in color, but it, in fact, is really blue.

Does that make the minorities claims valid? Of course not!

It is a FACT that you will NEVER EVER get a consensus of 100% of the people to say any particular one does not exist.

People LOVE conspiracy theories. That's a FACT too. People LOVE to have faith in the supernatural and unknown. And not with any proof, mind you, but just because it's fun and cool to believe in.

People have always been known to be easily duped. Just watch any Penn & Teller episode that has them presenting some form of known woo to people and watch them turn into mindless sheep just believing anything they are told that's presented as factual and true by someone who who appears to know what they are talking about. This is FACT, not specualtion.

People, by nature, are gullible and naive. The human population,as a whole, has a sheep mentality. They tend to be easily duped, tricked, taken advantage of, and scammed. People tend to take information they receive as factual, without any bearing to truth. When people are told something is true, especially by anyone with authority, they tend to, in general, believe what they are told.

Tell people that Dihydrogen Monoxide is dangerous, and ask them to sign a petetion to ban it, and in the VAST majority of cases, people will do it. Now, ask them the same question when in a group environment, and they see others signing the petetion, they becoming even more suseptable to just becoming part of the group "sheep" mentality. Those who might have had reservations or questioned whether they should sign the petition will GREATLY be influenced by the overall mentality of the group as a whole, and even reasonable, logical, and critical thinking people have been known to have been caught up in this "sheep" mentality.

That's the nature of humans. Simple as that. People (in general) are content to be sheep and just go along with what others tell them. Because of this, when they hear woo, they treat it with the same level of respect as everything else they hear. Being that most of the time people are simply told facts at work and from the news, they give the same level of credence to EVERYTHING they hear, rather than sorting out the woo from the truth.

With that said, it's clear that: (when surveying large groups):

1. You will NEVER get 100% of people to agree on anything, ESPECIALLY anything that "might" be considered to be part of some conspiracy.
2. No one should EVER base THEIR opinions on any polls or surveys because
there are simply too many mis/un/ill informed people out there.
3. People should use their OWN minds to formulate opinions. To reach an
opinion, one would be wise to employ critical thinking, logic, common sense,
research, and maybe even getting opinions from others. But, to make other
people's opinions more vaild (yes, there is such a thing), it would be
smart to question people of a higher education and those professionals
that are in the field of work that one wishes to gain information on.
4. Just because not 100% of a group agrees in something, that fact can
NEVER be used to say something isn't factual or not. With a large enough
group, someone will always disagree with the majority.
5. Failure to reach 100% consensus on any issue does NOT mean something
isn't true or factual. Never has, never will.
6. Because the world is full of dummies and idiots, it's simply insane to let
their opinions have ANY basis in what's true or not.
7. Why in the world would anyone think a poll of the US population would
be a reliable indicator as to what the facts are?????


You see. Your argument has come to picking a statement and playing semantics with it. You full well knew what I was saying. You'd get an almost
certain consensus between intelligent adults that the moon landings occurred.
I'll grant you that a certain % will ALWAYS fall into a fringe group.
I'll say once more...there misinformed thoughts have NO bearing on what the TRUTH is.

Now, people have given you MUCH information that answered many of your questions (or pointed you to sites that did). A reasonable, rational, intelligent person would listen to, what turns out to be, I think, 100% of the replies to your questioning the facts behind the moon landings. Unless another person from the very small fringe conspiracy group replied, I didn't see it. Excuse me in that case. Here, you have a large group of some VERY intelligent people, being respectful (mostly) and answering your doubts and pointing you to places that would be of great assistance

Hopefully you will have taken this information and formulated an opinion based on true facts, and not sensationalism based of wrong information.

How you can't be aware that everyone of the conspiracy questions has been long ago answered and explained away just amazes me. You don't think that if there was one grain of truth into this ridiculous claim that journalists would be on this like no other story in the world. Discovering a conspiracy regarding the moon landings would be a BIGGER STORY than the moon landings themselves. They'd certainly get international recognition, fame, fortune, and become known throughout the world as those who uncovered a REAL conspiracy. They'd be written down in all the history books to be immortalized forever. But you know what...not gonna happen.

Even if I did have runny eggs, it's better than eating cereal with a fork and having milk dribble down my face


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[Southwind17]

I know I said I'd give you the last word, but you did ask me a question, and
I feeled compelled to explain something to you, along the lines of logic and reason.

Now, something's making me think that it was never your intention to allow anybody to have the last word. I wonder what that could be? Let's take a look shall we:

No runny eggs at all. My statement claiming 99% would be of *reasonable,
intelligent people". Sorry I didn't clarify that. I wrongly assumed you would know what I meant. No reason to include the dummies..makes no sense.

Your numbers would come out to:
Umm...33 million misinformed people? (but the poll doesn't include the
children of the population, so that number might be 20 million misinformed
people). Doesn't surprise me one bit. Even if it was that much, there's a certain % of the population that are plain old dummies. A rather sizeable % at that too.

But 99% would be of intelligent people. I'd hardly call every poll taker "intelligent" or even reasonable.,


You state that some Gallup poll of Americans claim that 5% of Americans are not convinced that man landed on the moon, and another 6% were undecided, correct?

First off, the day I let OTHERS do the thinking for me is the day I'm dead. IOW, NEVER. What type of simple minded sheep would let OTHERS decide what they should think or what they should believe in? Answer me that!

2nd, I don't think any poll in the history of the world, when asked of a large enough # of people (let's say 10,000 or even as little as 100 people) has EVER or WILL EVER result in a 100% similar response. If you polled 10,000 random people on the streets of any major city and asked them if they believed the world was flat or round, you STILL WOULDN'T GET 100% of the people to agree.

If you didn't know, not everyone has a stable mind, and many more people have stable minds but are irrational. It's delusional to think that you would get a 100% (or even 98%) response when asking ANY question, let alone one that is already part of a mythical "conspiracy theory".

(Hence my not including this % of the population when I came up with my estimate.)

If you randomly sampled a large number of people, you can present them with any question that has entered the conspiracy theory world and NEVER EVER get more than 98% to go along with the popular, accepted believe.

You could ask if Elvis is still alive, if aliens abduct people, if <insert your favorite mysterious creature here> exists, if spirits exist, if people can bend spoons with their mind, if people can contact the dead, if people can use their minds to levitate, if psychics can truly defy the laws of physics....etc.

You can even ask people if blood is red, and still not get 100% of the respondents to agree. You'll have people SWEAR that blood is blue (look
at the veins in their arms) and claim that "when it hits oxygen, it turns red in color, but it, in fact, is really blue.

Does that make the minorities claims valid? Of course not!

It is a FACT that you will NEVER EVER get a consensus of 100% of the people to say any particular one does not exist.

People LOVE conspiracy theories. That's a FACT too. People LOVE to have faith in the supernatural and unknown. And not with any proof, mind you, but just because it's fun and cool to believe in.

People have always been known to be easily duped. Just watch any Penn & Teller episode that has them presenting some form of known woo to people and watch them turn into mindless sheep just believing anything they are told that's presented as factual and true by someone who who appears to know what they are talking about. This is FACT, not specualtion.

People, by nature, are gullible and naive. The human population,as a whole, has a sheep mentality. They tend to be easily duped, tricked, taken advantage of, and scammed. People tend to take information they receive as factual, without any bearing to truth. When people are told something is true, especially by anyone with authority, they tend to, in general, believe what they are told.

Tell people that Dihydrogen Monoxide is dangerous, and ask them to sign a petetion to ban it, and in the VAST majority of cases, people will do it. Now, ask them the same question when in a group environment, and they see others signing the petetion, they becoming even more suseptable to just becoming part of the group "sheep" mentality. Those who might have had reservations or questioned whether they should sign the petition will GREATLY be influenced by the overall mentality of the group as a whole, and even reasonable, logical, and critical thinking people have been known to have been caught up in this "sheep" mentality.

That's the nature of humans. Simple as that. People (in general) are content to be sheep and just go along with what others tell them. Because of this, when they hear woo, they treat it with the same level of respect as everything else they hear. Being that most of the time people are simply told facts at work and from the news, they give the same level of credence to EVERYTHING they hear, rather than sorting out the woo from the truth.

With that said, it's clear that: (when surveying large groups):

1. You will NEVER get 100% of people to agree on anything, ESPECIALLY anything that "might" be considered to be part of some conspiracy.
2. No one should EVER base THEIR opinions on any polls or surveys because
there are simply too many mis/un/ill informed people out there.
3. People should use their OWN minds to formulate opinions. To reach an
opinion, one would be wise to employ critical thinking, logic, common sense,
research, and maybe even getting opinions from others. But, to make other
people's opinions more vaild (yes, there is such a thing), it would be
smart to question people of a higher education and those professionals
that are in the field of work that one wishes to gain information on.
4. Just because not 100% of a group agrees in something, that fact can
NEVER be used to say something isn't factual or not. With a large enough
group, someone will always disagree with the majority.
5. Failure to reach 100% consensus on any issue does NOT mean something
isn't true or factual. Never has, never will.
6. Because the world is full of dummies and idiots, it's simply insane to let
their opinions have ANY basis in what's true or not.
7. Why in the world would anyone think a poll of the US population would
be a reliable indicator as to what the facts are?????


You see. Your argument has come to picking a statement and playing semantics with it. You full well knew what I was saying. You'd get an almost
certain consensus between intelligent adults that the moon landings occurred.
I'll grant you that a certain % will ALWAYS fall into a fringe group.
I'll say once more...there misinformed thoughts have NO bearing on what the TRUTH is.

Now, people have given you MUCH information that answered many of your questions (or pointed you to sites that did). A reasonable, rational, intelligent person would listen to, what turns out to be, I think, 100% of the replies to your questioning the facts behind the moon landings. Unless another person from the very small fringe conspiracy group replied, I didn't see it. Excuse me in that case. Here, you have a large group of some VERY intelligent people, being respectful (mostly) and answering your doubts and pointing you to places that would be of great assistance

Hopefully you will have taken this information and formulated an opinion based on true facts, and not sensationalism based of wrong information.

How you can't be aware that everyone of the conspiracy questions has been long ago answered and explained away just amazes me. You don't think that if there was one grain of truth into this ridiculous claim that journalists would be on this like no other story in the world. Discovering a conspiracy regarding the moon landings would be a BIGGER STORY than the moon landings themselves. They'd certainly get international recognition, fame, fortune, and become known throughout the world as those who uncovered a REAL conspiracy. They'd be written down in all the history books to be immortalized forever. But you know what...not gonna happen.

Even if I did have runny eggs, it's better than eating cereal with a fork and having milk dribble down my face


Cheers,
DrZ

And what was it that started all this population statistics malarkey:

They fall in with the fringe group and deny the 99.99% of the population who knows otherwise...yet SOMEHOW think THEY are right and the 99% are wrong!!
Did you ever think when 99.99999% of a humungous group believes something to be factual based on credible evidence that it's true?

Now allow me to explain something to you 'along the lines of logic and reason':

If somebody who clearly likes to harp on about the importance of factual information is predisposed to pulling figures out of the air, wildly exaggerated figures at that, in support of an argument, then that peson should not be surprised to be met with some empirical data that purports to challenge such figures.

Having been presented with such data, to then post a diatribe on the ins and outs of data collection and interpretation, well, that does raise certain key questions, in addition to questions regarding the initial 'data', about that person's ability to form any sort of logical argument.

 

[Southwind17]

So, Southwind. I'm still waiting ...

Well, with posts like this it's obvious you're spoiling for some sort of a spat. Ordinarily, I'd be inclined to ignore you and let you wallow in your own self-attribution bias, but on this occasion I'll undulge you, given the incredulity of your response that you're enticing me to comment on. Unfortunately for you, though, I intend to be civil and fair, which you might have difficulty assimilating, but here goes (I might have to let slip with a little sarcasm mind, because your response, with respect, is simply crying out for some. I trust you will see this as fair game, though, when one actively seeks out a spat, and that you won't find it offensive. I will keep in mind your apparent sensitivity, though!):

Saying "Fair enough. I guess some people are of a more sensitive disposition than others.", instead of just "fair enough", when I mentioned I had reported your post. Obviously, you seem to think it serves your "side" to insinuate that I reported your post because I have a "more sensitive disposition" than you do, rather than for violation of the forum rules.

I'll ask again: What fallacy? What part, exactly, of what I wrote, as quoted by you above, do you believe is 'fallacious'?

Also, I don't understand your reference to 'side', and what purpose you think my 'insinuation' seeks to 'serve'. Are you able to clarify?

Out of context ? You said you were unconvinced. What exactly does that mean, if not exactly what it says ? I did read the rest of your paragraph, but it in no way nullifies or alters the first sentence.

Please, allow me to quote the original 'first sentence':

I remain unconvinced that man has actually walked on the moon, but if I were a betting man I'd say that we probably did, although you'd have to give me good odds!

Now let's remind ourselves exactly of the 'first sentence' you quoted:

I remain unconvinced that man has actually walked on the moon

Other than the fact that you seem to mistake commas for full stops, your selective quote was clearly intended to set you up for a well-timed attempt at sarcasm:

I believe that this is what people mean when they say "you just went down a notch."

Sheesh. Feel free to join reality, any time.

I believe that quoting the full sentence not only would have stolen your irresistible thunder, but would also have put paid to the false impression that you clearly sought to give by quoting only the selective portion. It would be very difficult for any reasonable person to believe that the partial quote and the full quote paint an equal picture of what I truly believe.

So you... have no problem with me telling you that your opinion is ridiculous... but you have a problem when I ridicule your opinion ? Is there a difference ?

I wrote that I tend to find it irritating when people seek to ridicule my opinion based solely on their own opinions. Unless there is more to an argument than opinion then it can hardly be considered a sound basis to ridicule others' opinions, unless derogation is the aim. Accordingly, I might tend to find it irritating if somebody were either to 'tell' me my opinion is ridiculous or were to 'ridicule' my opinion. I'm not sure there really is much of a difference, but one thing's for sure, I certainly wouldn't find your telling or ridiculing my opinions irritating, given the extent to which you've discredited your own credibility in this post particularly, but also by your seeming tendency to selectively quote for nothing more than personal gratification.

And, no. It's not because it's MY opinion. It's a fact.

What, exactly, are you referring to when you write: 'it's'? What's 'a fact'?

If it's not what you believe, then perhaps you shouldn't say "I" when saying it.

What, exactly, are you referring to when you write: 'it's'? What do you believe I have I stated I don't believe?

I did consider the possibility, and rejected it, several years ago.

Oh, so we're all entitled to consider the possibility are we, but because some of us might start later, or take longer, until we've reached a conclusion, as you obviously did, then until such time we have to sustain the wrath of your discrediting tactics do we? The very fact that you 'considered the possibility' demonstrates that there was a time when you remained to be convinced (I wonder what cast the doubt in your mind!). Are you saying that everybody should accept whatever conclusion you drew and toe the line, or are we entitled to pursue our own enquiries and form our own opinions based on the information that we obtain, some of which, clearly, you haven't even set eyes on?

Moreover, I don't know how you can tell how strong my convictions are by reading a single sentence like "feel free to join reality".

Well, I'd be very surprised to see somebody posting sarcastic comments as an attempt at derrogation if there was a chance such comments and inference could be turned back on that person if they were to show any doubt in their convictions later, wouldn't you? Your sarcy comments demonstrate exactly your degree of conviction, no different in principle from the plethora of bible-bashers out there.

Oh, that was not a defense, trust me. It was an attack.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you write: 'that'. Are you able to clarify?

Yes. You have a problem with people telling you your opinions are ridiculous.

I believe I've clarified this above, for your benefit.

We call those woo-woos. Seriously, though. I have no passion about any of those subjects, though I suppose you could say that ignorance does get me somewhat emotional.

I'm sorry, who, exactly, is 'we'? And who, exactly, do these 'we' people refer to as 'woo-woos'?

You have no passion? But one of the very subjects to which I allude, and subsequently refer, is CTs, of which the Apollo Moon landings is one. You seem pretty passionate to me, which, as I pointed out, can tend to colour one's objective judgement.

By 'ignorance' do you mean your own, or other people's, seriously? You'll be champing at the bit to see the Groves study and analysis, presumably?

Unfortunately for you, any number of reasons result in mockery, sarcasm, condescension, ad hominem comments and derogation, so I don't think they indicate that I, or anybody else, has no argument. I'm sure you realise that, when confronted with a claim that has been debunked over and over and over, someone like me might be inclined to answer in short strikes rather than long posts. Something along the lines of "read a book", for example.

If you have an argument, as you imply, so make it, instead of resorting to the evasive and cheap alternative strategies that we both seem to recognize. Yes, I do recognize what you describe, and I've given my perceived reasons why some people resort to these tactics. The better debaters out there avoid this immature behaviour, though, and try to pass on in an objective and convincing fashion the information, arguments and reasons that they've acquired through their, presumably, extensive study of the subject, and that's led them to their conclusions. It's a little like teaching. Any teacher could simply instruct students to 'go read a book'. That's not a very intelligent and tuitional approach, though, is it. Given that you've clearly shown here which category you fit into I suppose there's an argument to say that you can be forgiven for your comments. Incidentally, would books such as 'Dark Moon', including Groves' study and analysis, happen to be one of the 'books' to which your example alludes, or would you just advocate books that seek to show the side of the argument that reflects your own convictions?

I can't remember the last time homosexuality caused such a ruckus while I was there.

I assume you're referring to the Forum! You see, Belz, this is what happens with selective quoting. You can just see that one headlining a broadsheet, can't you?!

Well, you couldn't have participated in this one then, which is still current: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2982605#post2982605

Well, isn't that a nice, plump tautology, since most respondents were Americans !

I can see why you might consider what I said to be tautological. What I'm getting at, however, is that the reason why many Americans believe in god, in my opinion, accounts for why so many Americans shudder at the thought of even considering the possibility that the Apollo Lunar landings could have been faked. Therefore, any straw poll of Americans regarding their position on the matter that might be used to gauge any likelihood of truth based on popular opinion (see below) is fundamentally flawed, leading to an artificially high proportion of 'believers'.

That is indeed a possibility. After all, I'm sure there are plenty of non-skeptical atheists out there. They were simply raised that way just like theists were. However, since I'm sure you are aware of the argument from belief, you must know that it works both ways. Just because someone doesn't have reasons to believe in something, doesn't mean that something isn't true, so the belief itself is not an argument, either way.

I am aware of that argument (is it a fallacy?), and we will both, no doubt, agree that it puts paid nicely to the good doctor's fidgety figures, doesn't it:

They fall in with the fringe group and deny the 99.99% of the population who knows otherwise...yet SOMEHOW think THEY are right and the 99% are wrong!!
Did you ever think when 99.99999% of a humungous group believes something to be factual based on credible evidence that it's true?

I'd like to bet that the proportion of Americans who've taken longer than a second even to consider whether the Apollo Moon landings could have possibly been faked is inversely proportional to the figure(s) that the good doctor posits as the number of Americans who have no doubts, notwithstanding that the good doctor posits his figures as based on 'fact' derived from 'credible evidence'! I wonder which 'facts' and 'credible evidence', exactly, he's alluding to? Blind faith!

That amounts to the CTers argument that goes like this "well, I guess you think goverments never lie, right ?". Of course, it's a dodge, designed to draw attention away from the argument. The evidence shows we went to the moon. Politics has nothing to do with it.

I'm not sure what you mean when you write: 'the argument'. What 'argument', exactly, are you referring to?

Are you saying that if it were to be shown at some point that the whole thing was a conspiracy (if you can even imagine that concept, that is!), that it wasn't driven by political gain?! Moreover, are you saying that politics had nothing to with the 'space race' period?!

The only people who don't like fallacies being mentioned are those who use them.

That's surely only your opinion (again), but I think you mean 'those who commit them'. I don't mind fallacies being mentioned, provided they're cited legitimately and honestly. In my opinion, the 'Fallacy of Fallacious Fallacy Calling' is commited far too frequently around these parts by people all too eager to seek to discredit a valid argument because they often don't have as strong a counter-argument to offer in their defence.

95% and you're still "uncertain" ? I suppose, if you think "certain" means that you're 100%, ironclad sure, then you're uncertain about everything, making the word completely worthless.

This refers back to what I wrote earlier, you'll recall.

No, 95% cannot mean 'certain' by any reasonable person's analysis of such measure. If you really want to appreciate what 95% certainty feels like, or better still 5% uncertainty, consider playing Russian Roulette with one round and just two 10-chamber revolvers - just one pull of the trigger. I reckon the look on your face, not to mention the sweat running down your back, would reveal better than anything what 95% certainty really looks like!

Well, that clears it up.

I think it certainly rounds things off nicely! Was it worth waiting for?

 

[Belz...]

Unfortunately for you, though, I intend to be civil and fair

Why would that be unfortunate ? What I find unfortunate is that one comment, admittedly a little harsh, resulted in a reaction I'd expect from someone I nearby beat to death in an alley. I think you overreacted.

I'll ask again: What fallacy? What part, exactly, of what I wrote, as quoted by you above, do you believe is 'fallacious'?

You're trying to make the reason for reporting your post emotional rather than simply the rules of the forum. And you're doing it deliberatly. Sounds somewhat like an ad hom to me, though it's not exactly it. So it's probably a fallacy, though I don't know the name.

Also, I don't understand your reference to 'side', and what purpose you think my 'insinuation' seeks to 'serve'. Are you able to clarify?

Actually, if you don't understand then it means I'm probably wrong, so that's good.

Now let's remind ourselves exactly of the 'first sentence' you quoted:

Other than the fact that you seem to mistake commas for full stops, your selective quote was clearly intended to set you up for a well-timed attempt at sarcasm:

Oh, it wasn't sarcasm, as I told you before. It was a simple attack. Saying that there's 75% chance of humans having set foot on the moon, for example, would support your claim that, if you were a betting man, you'd go for the "Aye"s. But you STILL say you're unconvinced, and that's nay-saying it me. You were caught saying something silly, and now you're wiggling, plain and simple.

I believe that quoting the full sentence not only would have stolen your irresistible thunder, but would also have put paid to the false impression that you clearly sought to give by quoting only the selective portion.

Not at all. Look:

I remain unconvinced that man has actually walked on the moon, but if I were a betting man I'd say that we probably did, although you'd have to give me good odds!

I believe that this is what people mean when they say "you just went down a notch."

Sheesh. Feel free to join reality, any time.

And, by the way, "you'd have to give me good odds" implies that you don't think the odds are that good.

I wrote that I tend to find it irritating when people seek to ridicule my opinion based solely on their own opinions.

Then worry no more. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that we went to the moon, so it's far from being an opinion.

given the extent to which you've discredited your own credibility in this post particularly, but also by your seeming tendency to selectively quote for nothing more than personal gratification.

And again you try to probe my mind. Stay away from psychology.

What, exactly, are you referring to when you write: 'it's'? What do you believe I have I stated I don't believe?

That you are unconvinced that we went to the moon.

Oh, so we're all entitled to consider the possibility are we, but because some of us might start later, or take longer, until we've reached a conclusion, as you obviously did, then until such time we have to sustain the wrath of your discrediting tactics do we?

You DID say you had researched the subject, didn't you ? Haven't you already reached your conclusion ? If you haven't, then fine, I retract what I said, though I don't understand what's taking so long. Otherwise, it stands.

The very fact that you 'considered the possibility' demonstrates that there was a time when you remained to be convinced (I wonder what cast the doubt in your mind!).

Nope. I'm a skeptic. When presented with evidence, I examine it first. I did, and rejected it. I was never "unconvinced".

By 'ignorance' do you mean your own, or other people's, seriously?

Anybody's, including my own.

If you have an argument, as you imply, so make it

Simple: sarcasm doesn't mean the other person doesn't have a point.

Given that you've clearly shown here which category you fit into

Say, I'll bite. What category would this be ?

Incidentally, would books such as 'Dark Moon', including Groves' study and analysis, happen to be one of the 'books' to which your example alludes, or would you just advocate books that seek to show the side of the argument that reflects your own convictions?

Read them all, if you want to. When I look for information on a controversial subject, I look at both sides, and examine their arguments.

Well, you couldn't have participated in this one then, which is still current: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2982605#post2982605

Ah! I seem to remember this old beast, now. Though the only thing I remember posting in it was about religion.

I am aware of that argument (is it a fallacy?), and we will both, no doubt, agree that it puts paid nicely to the good doctor's fidgety figures, doesn't it:

When someone puts more than one zero after the decimal point, I tend to be highly skeptical of the claim.

I'd like to bet that the proportion of Americans who've taken longer than a second even to consider whether the Apollo Moon landings could have possibly been faked is inversely proportional to the figure(s) that the good doctor posits as the number of Americans who have no doubts, notwithstanding that the good doctor posits his figures as based on 'fact' derived from 'credible evidence'! I wonder which 'facts' and 'credible evidence', exactly, he's alluding to? Blind faith!

I don't see where you're going with this, except maybe a reverse argument from popularity, which is odd. Shouldn't we be looking at the evidence ?

Are you saying that if it were to be shown at some point that the whole thing was a conspiracy (if you can even imagine that concept, that is!), that it wasn't driven by political gain?! Moreover, are you saying that politics had nothing to with the 'space race' period?!

No, I'm saying that I don't trust governments, and that doesn't mean I disbelieve everything they say. I'm also saying that your claim didn't adress the argument, but the arguer, instead.

That's surely only your opinion (again)

It is.

but I think you mean 'those who commit them'.

Yes, thanks for the correction. English isn't my first language, so I still stumble, once in a while.

I don't mind fallacies being mentioned, provided they're cited legitimately and honestly. In my opinion, the 'Fallacy of Fallacious Fallacy Calling' is commited far too frequently around these parts by people all too eager to seek to discredit a valid argument because they often don't have as strong a counter-argument to offer in their defence.

How can you have a counter argument for something that isn't an argument ? That's the whole point of naming fallacies. They're non sequiturs, and they need to be shot down, not adressed.

No, 95% cannot mean 'certain' by any reasonable person's analysis of such measure. If you really want to appreciate what 95% certainty feels like, or better still 5% uncertainty, consider playing Russian Roulette with one round and just two 10-chamber revolvers - just one pull of the trigger. I reckon the look on your face, not to mention the sweat running down your back, would reveal better than anything what 95% certainty really looks like!

I suppose it would come as a surprise to you if I told you that the required amount of certainty varies with the subject we're discussing...

I think it certainly rounds things off nicely! Was it worth waiting for?

Well, yes.

 

[Southwind17]

Belz - your last post responding to my last post misses some points made by me and shows some misunderstandings of what I've written. I see little merit, however, in taking our little side debate any further, but I'd be happy to clarify any points further if you're not satisfied with what I've written. Let me know if that's the case please.