ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Andromeda on July 20, 2015, 11:28:05 AM
-
... and the comments thread would fill a bingo card several times over.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153464942539347&id=348266389346
-
... and the comments thread would fill a bingo card several times over.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153464942539347&id=348266389346
Don't sit on the fence Prof Cox. This was posted some 7 years ago :)
-
...and this [there's a bit of choice language in this one, for those of a sensitive disposition to profanity].
-
His loathing for HBs is well known, and you can get a clue as to his love of Apollo from the name of his web site:
http://www.apolloschildren.com/
He is also conducting the Q&A for James Lovell at a talk I'm attending in October, which should be great :)
-
His loathing for HBs is well known, and you can get a clue as to his love of Apollo from the name of his web site:
http://www.apolloschildren.com/
He is also conducting the Q&A for James Lovell at a talk I'm attending in October, which should be great :)
He takes a little criticism for his style, but I think he's really helped put physics back on the map in this country. There was a steady decrease in the number of students studying physics at University in the UK. That was reversed (for a few years at least), and it was called the Cox effect. I really like his work, despite some over the top presentation and the seemingly unnecessary exotic locations.
The death of star portion of Wonders filmed in the old prison does make me smile.
-
there's a bit of choice language in this one, for those of a sensitive disposition to profanity
I like this one:
https://twitter.com/profbriancox/status/469856951871225857
It's a phrase he's used more than once on his twitter feed to describe hoaxnuts. I also think it works better without the 'k'.
-
there's a bit of choice language in this one, for those of a sensitive disposition to profanity
I like this one:
https://twitter.com/profbriancox/status/469856951871225857
It's a phrase he's used more than once on his twitter feed to describe hoaxnuts. I also think it works better without the 'k'.
Hi Bertie, (sorry off topic) but will arrange that drink soon :).
I have just had a altercation with your old friend Taffy, my god the man is getting worse than ever. :)
-
Hi Bertie, (sorry off topic) but will arrange that drink soon :).
I have just had a altercation with your old friend Taffy, my god the man is getting worse than ever. :)
Hi mate. PM me about Taffy (I'd almost forgotten about him ::)) and let's get down the boozer soon. ;D
-
... and the comments thread would fill a bingo card several times over.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153464942539347&id=348266389346
Yep. It's all 'searing radiation hell' and 'why no stars?'. Depressing really.
-
It's a phrase he's used more than once on his twitter feed to describe hoaxnuts. I also think it works better without the 'k'.
I've never really paid much attention to his Twitter feed, but that has made me laugh. Someone posted a response and used the word wazzack, which I have not heard in a long long time.
-
I find the comment itself just useless. >:( It doesn't make the question a matter of facts but of values, which is *exactly* where the conspiracy theorists want it. Doctor Cox just cocked this up.
-
I find the comment itself just useless. >:( It doesn't make the question a matter of facts but of values, which is *exactly* where the conspiracy theorists want it. Doctor Cox just cocked this up.
I understand your point, and yes we should all rise above it and stick to the arguments and let the facts speak for themselves and so on and so on, but your committed HB isn't interested in them. For all the dazzling swordplay of rational argument and logic you might attempt, sooner or later you need to do this:
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/2689430/guns-swords-o.gif)
One of the reasons I set up my own website was I got very bored of posting on conspiracy forums where the niceties of the terms and conditions meant I was unable to tell them what I thought of them. On my own site I have no such constraints and I can call a moron a moron.
In Cox's defence he gets a lot of stupid hoaxer nonsense on his facebook and twitter feeds, and from the sound of it in his email inbox as well. I imagine it gets pretty tedious having the stupid try and educate you on a subject you know a lot about. I've seen from his TV shows that he doesn't suffer fools gladly and when it comes to Apollo he doesn't suffer them at all!
-
The local water didn't agree with him, that's why the "sword vs. whip"-scene got cancelled.
-
The Huffington Post have reported the Professor's comments, along with Buzz Aldrin's tweets.
Huffington Post - Brian Cox article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brian-cox-moon-conspiracy_55ada24ce4b0d2ded39fe56d?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067)
-
I find the comment itself just useless. >:( It doesn't make the question a matter of facts but of values, which is *exactly* where the conspiracy theorists want it. Doctor Cox just cocked this up.
I'm not so sure, I think when it comes from someone so influential and a popular scientist with immense public interest, it doesn't hurt. OK, the blow hards aren't going to be swayed, but there are those doubters who might think 'well if it's good enough for Prof Cox, it's good enough for me.'
I also think that given his position, it is a nice swipe at the likes of JW and Adrian. It shows his disdain and exactly how much time he is going to invest in countering CTs claims - almost nothing! It sends out some form of useful message, even if people want to question the tone and content. It doesn't single out anyone in particular, so I'm comfortbale its not ad hominen at a personal level.
I also think that given he is a 'TV Professor', the slightly fruity language does make it amusing and it might gain some positive public interest as a result. I'd rather have him in Apollo's corner making such statments :)
-
Yes, but it puts it in the arena they can play in.
Anyone can insult. Only the truth has facts.
Besides, this isn't even a really good zinger.
It's a cut and paste 'If you believe x, you are stupid'.
Indy may have brought down the scimitar wielding goon with a single shot, but Doctor Cox is shooting blanks, in my opinion.
-
He was chucking similar comments on astrology on one of the TV programs. Seems to have upset a few people. One the offended is an MP (Member for Parliament, an elected official).
-
I was debating with a HB in the Prof. Cox fb page until it seems he blocked me or deleted the thread. We were discussing why the lunar surface reflects light (really?) and why mountains appear to be near when they are very far. I presented him the evidence for each of his claims and he kept asking me the same question again and again until he was, I think, overwhelmed. At least some readers could see it to be informed. I went to his profile and I saw a lot anti-science stuff, ugh.
-
Yes, but it puts it in the arena they can play in.
I'll take it in context given his position. I have no problem with what he said. It comes across as 'I've got better things to do than argue with people about Apollo.' Good for him, he says what he thinks without singling out any individuals. I really belive he has the earned the right to say it given all he has done to popularise science. It's a throw away line of a very busy and passionate scientist, and I'll take it at face value. If the hoaxies want to go and play in that arena then it shows that they are quick to run away from facts. They choose their areans to suit anyway, and often it's a little walled garden where they can't get hurt by facts.
-
He was chucking similar comments on astrology on one of the TV programs. Seems to have upset a few people. One the offended is an MP (Member for Parliament, an elected official).
Probably this guy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28464009
Having someone like that work in the departments he does genuinely frightens me.
-
there's a bit of choice language in this one, for those of a sensitive disposition to profanity
I like this one:
https://twitter.com/profbriancox/status/469856951871225857
It's a phrase he's used more than once on his twitter feed to describe hoaxnuts. I also think it works better without the 'k'.
And this link to a comic skit concerning a hoax, good stuff.
-
He was chucking similar comments on astrology on one of the TV programs. Seems to have upset a few people. One the offended is an MP (Member for Parliament, an elected official).
Probably this guy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28464009
Having someone like that work in the departments he does genuinely frightens me.
Scary, isn't it? A bit like Jeremy Hunt, the current Health secretary supporting mumbo-jumbo such as homoeopathy.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/08/jeremy-hunt-homeopathy-studies-chief-medical-officer
<shakes head and walks away>
-
Having someone like that work in the departments he does genuinely frightens me.
Almost as good as the UKIP MEP (Stuart Agnew) who argued that reducing carbon emissions across Europe will mean there is no carbon dioxide for plants to grow, so what will happen to our crops?
The look on the faces of others in the chamber, an utter delight.
-
He was chucking similar comments on astrology on one of the TV programs. Seems to have upset a few people. One the offended is an MP (Member for Parliament, an elected official).
Probably this guy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28464009
Having someone like that work in the departments he does genuinely frightens me.
That's the fella. On the face of it I wonder how he is still an MP, but then he is in good company.
-
Almost as good as the UKIP MEP (Stuart Agnew) who argued that reducing carbon emissions across Europe will mean there is no carbon dioxide for plants to grow, so what will happen to our crops?
Bwwwwwhahaha!!!
-
Al Murray has entered the fray on his Twitter account.
https://twitter.com/almurray/status/623402407851098112
-
It comes across as 'I've got better things to do than argue with people about Apollo.'
Saying that is one thing, though I think the "conspiratorially minded" will see it as proof that he's in on the hoax. However, I'm tired of the attitude that insulting people is being "plain-spoken" and "saying things as they are." It's being rude and unhelpful.
-
Saying that is one thing, though I think the "conspiratorially minded" will see it as proof that he's in on the hoax.
Which is how I interpret Prof Cox's comment. He can't be bothered, so either belive Apollo or join the ranks of the "conspiratorially minded." Except he chooses to call the "conspiratorially minded" something else.
However, I'm tired of the attitude that insulting people is being "plain-spoken" and "saying things as they are." It's being rude and unhelpful.
I wouldn't advocate adopting the line as a primary/sole strategy. Maybe he's just tired of having his inbox filled and wants to have a bit of a vent. I think it's mildly amusing coming from a Professor of Physics, and one that's in the public eye makes it that bit more amusing. Despite posting several times in this thread, I'm not taking it seriously at all. It's nothing more than a bit of click bait, and a midly amusing one at that.
In fact, the down side of him speaking out is that he's probably brought the moon hoax into the public arena once more.
-
It comes across as 'I've got better things to do than argue with people about Apollo.'
Saying that is one thing, though I think the "conspiratorially minded" will see it as proof that he's in on the hoax. However, I'm tired of the attitude that insulting people is being "plain-spoken" and "saying things as they are." It's being rude and unhelpful.
Be honest now. Wouldn't the "conspiratorially minded" already be 100% certain in their own warped and feeble minds that Brian Cox was in on the hoax anyway. After all, he is a scientist, and these nut-jobs believe that all scientists the whole world over, regardless of disciplines or political borders, are in on this giant, global conspiracy to fool the public into thinking the Apollo landings were real.
I for one, find it refreshing that a person of Brian Cox's public profile doesn't mince his words, and says exactly what he thinks of these idiots, instead of towing the politically correct party line of pubic broadcasting. More power to him for doing so, and I would encourage him to continue treating these "conspiratorially minded" stupids with the utter contempt they deserve.
-
What about intelligent people who just happened to learn enough about a conspiracy theory to believe it but not enough to know how wrong it is? I know quite a few of those, and calling them stupid will just make them dig in their heels.
-
What about intelligent people who just happened to learn enough about a conspiracy theory to believe it but not enough to know how wrong it is? I know quite a few of those, and calling them stupid will just make them dig in their heels.
Well, there's an oxymoron right there. People who dig their heels in when they get called stupid are, IMO, just confirming what they have been called.
Gillianren, you may be prepared to give CTs, HBs, twoofers, etc the benefit of the doubt. I am not. If they have advanced to the stage where they are pestering people like Brian Cox and Neil De Grasse Tyson with their inane CT theories then they have long abandoned any willingness to learn, and are well beyond any sort of redemption.
PS: Do not mistake this for me thinking that they must have mental illness/issues. Like most people, I use terms such as "stupid", "nut job", "idiot" and "feeble minded" in the figurative sense not the literal sense. I understand well that it is not uncommon for people to suffer from mental illness and still be very intelligent.... Howard Hughes, David Helfgott, John Nash, Sir Isaac Newton, Kurt Godel et al. There a large body of evidence to suggest that there really is something to the "Mad Scientist" stereotype, and that highly intelligent people can be more prone to mental issues.
The old saying that there is a fine line between genius and insanity has elements of truth!
-
Prof Cox has only gone and cited Bob B's van Allen belt dose calculations on his FB page.
Well done Bob, you've got Brian Cox reading your website.
https://www.facebook.com/ProfessorBrianCox/posts/10153469525434347?fref=nf&pnref=story
-
Beat me to it :)
(http://i62.tinypic.com/14lhrbl.jpg)
-
I'm almost regretting my facebook boycott, that is great :)
-
I'm almost regretting my facebook boycott, that is great :)
These type forums are the limit of my internet social media.
-
The Daily Mail has picked up on this now and is running one of its regular 'did they or didn't they' articles. The comments have turned into a bit of a bunfight (to which I have, admittedly, contributed) with the same tired old nonsense being trotted out and wearily rebutted.
Several of the HB commenters have used the 'if you have to resort to insults, you've lost the argument', in reference to what Dr Cox said, with which I have some sympathy. However, it would be interesting if he released some of the communications he must have received that compelled him to make this statement. I'm sure they would be polite and well-reasoned ::)
-
Well, there's an oxymoron right there. People who dig their heels in when they get called stupid are, IMO, just confirming what they have been called.
It's actually a very human reaction. The psychology is quite clear on this.
Gillianren, you may be prepared to give CTs, HBs, twoofers, etc the benefit of the doubt. I am not. If they have advanced to the stage where they are pestering people like Brian Cox and Neil De Grasse Tyson with their inane CT theories then they have long abandoned any willingness to learn, and are well beyond any sort of redemption.
I do somewhat agree with that. However, my friend who believed (we haven't discussed it in years) that there was something fishy about the collapse of the World Trade Center never would have actually pestered anyone famous about it. She seldom talked about it at all. But if you responded with, "Only idiots believe that," she was more likely to think, "Sure, you say that because you don't have a real answer." We treat the idea of lurkers as a joke, given how often the CTs claim the lurkers are being convinced by them, but the fact is, there are almost always more lurkers than participants, and I believe that it's important to consider them when you're responding to something.
-
I do somewhat agree with that. However, my friend who believed (we haven't discussed it in years) that there was something fishy about the collapse of the World Trade Center never would have actually pestered anyone famous about it. She seldom talked about it at all. But if you responded with, "Only idiots believe that," she was more likely to think, "Sure, you say that because you don't have a real answer." We treat the idea of lurkers as a joke, given how often the CTs claim the lurkers are being convinced by them, but the fact is, there are almost always more lurkers than participants, and I believe that it's important to consider them when you're responding to something.
There's also the case that someone of 'notable importance' has really stirred up the chickens, and the number of supporting comments and likes Prof Cox has received in a few hours far outnumbers anything that Jarrah White or Adrian could muster, or we could muster here. In fact, the attention that it has spawned provides clear data to the likes of Adrian (and to some degree JW) that the moon hoax is not the popularist movement that they believe.
There are a few casual theorists putting forward the old debunked arguments on Cox's FB feed, such as no stars and blast craters, and people are linking them to sites such as Clavius. Maybe for once a little mean spiritedness has actually had a favourable outcome.
I think it's also a bit of banter on his part too, and I would not die in a ditch over it. He's certainly showing his Lancastrian charm. As someone commented on his FB feed: You can take the boy out of Manchester, but...
-
There's also the case that someone of 'notable importance' has really stirred up the chickens, and the number of supporting comments and likes Prof Cox has received in a few hours far outnumbers anything that Jarrah White or Adrian could muster, or we could muster here. In fact, the attention that it has spawned provides clear data to the likes of Adrian (and to some degree JW) that the moon hoax is not the popularist movement that they believe.
Of course, they can always claim that the "likes" have been faked by the The Bilderberg Group / Illuminati / NWO / NASA / The Freemasons [delete if and/or as applicable].
This is the great advantage of being a CT; you can handwave away or dismiss without evidence, any apparent facts that contradict your ludicrous worldview, by claiming "the [insert claimed conspirators here] faked it". There will, of course, be no evidence whatsoever that they have done this, so you simply fabricate some evidence out of whole cloth.
-
Prof Cox has only gone and cited Bob B's van Allen belt dose calculations on his FB page.
Well done Bob, you've got Brian Cox reading your website.
https://www.facebook.com/ProfessorBrianCox/posts/10153469525434347?fref=nf&pnref=story
Cool! I'm not on Facebook but it's nice to get noticed by somebody like Prof Cox.
-
The Daily Mail has picked up on this now and is running one of its regular 'did they or didn't they' articles. The comments have turned into a bit of a bunfight (to which I have, admittedly, contributed) with the same tired old nonsense being trotted out and wearily rebutted.
You are so right on this one! Im amazed how much they still use the waving flag/ no stars argument.
-
The Daily Mail has picked up on this now and is running one of its regular 'did they or didn't they' articles. The comments have turned into a bit of a bunfight (to which I have, admittedly, contributed) with the same tired old nonsense being trotted out and wearily rebutted.
You are so right on this one! Im amazed how much they still use the waving flag/ no stars argument.
I trying to avoid that news outlet now. It does not care, it just wants the traffic so will create the sensationalist stories. And the right hand column is
But I might have a sneaky peak at this......
-
Brian has coined a new moniker for Hoax Believers #moonnobbers
https://www.facebook.com/ProfessorBrianCox/posts/10153469557799347
I wonder if it's trending yet? :D
-
I like it. And will start using it right now!
-
I wonder if it's trending yet? :D
It was trending on my FB page for about 4 days, but it has stopped now. I think the storm has died down.