Strong arguments versus weak arguments.

[Rob260259]

Some years ago I was banned by him after some comments on his YT videos. Yes, the guy has invested a truly enormous amount of time and energy in this conspiracy position. Let alone all of his ego. The guy really committed himself publicly. Most likely he started several years ago with a naive belief and sincere doubts, based on ignorance and distrust (a political agenda?) that the NASA Apollo Moon missions were faked. And of course he studied a lot more about space travel, unfortunately visiting mainly hoax websites and reading conspiracy books, and just when he came deep into the specs and details of Apollo he must have had second thoughts. Also, many credentialed people have patiently explained many of his stupidities and errors, in great detail (some of us commented on his videos about radiation effects, his 'revelations' about Apollo photography, math and physics calculations, and the capabilities of the Apollo computer, and many more things). I think he feels it's too late now. There is no turning back for him.

[Obviousman]

Also, many credentialed people have patiently explained many of his stupidities and errors, in great detail (some of us commented on his videos about radiation effects, his 'revelations' about Apollo photography, math and physics calculations, and the capabilities of the Apollo computer, and many more things).

This is the primary reason he irks me so; people who are qualified and experienced in the areas regarding the claims he makes have told him he is wrong, why he is wrong, and how he can prove to himself he is in error..... but he just chooses to ignore those who do actually know more than he does.

I simply cannot excuse such blatant wilful ignorance.

[Chew]

http://greylining.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/flounce-bingo.jpg?w=510

Heh. We need to play Moon hoaxer bingo with the next HB who comes to visit.
"No stars in the photos"
"Van Allen Belt radiation"
"Shadows aren't parallel"
"Computing power of the AGC"
"The gubmint always lies"
"If I ran the zoo" (or any appropriate Jay'ism)
"Wheat" e.g. the Russians were in on it in exchange for wheat
"Appeal to common sense"
"In my uninformed layperson's opinion..."
"Citing an unnamed source"
"I can't do the math but I can tell just by looking at it..."
"Compartmentalization"
The center square will be "I'm just asking questions". The center square is supposed to be a freebie but since HBs always start off with that it is in all practicality a freebie.

[frenat]

http://greylining.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/flounce-bingo.jpg?w=510

Heh. We need to play Moon hoaxer bingo with the next HB who comes to visit.
"No stars in the photos"
"Van Allen Belt radiation"
"Shadows aren't parallel"
"Computing power of the AGC"
"The gubmint always lies"
"If I ran the zoo" (or any appropriate Jay'ism)
"Wheat" e.g. the Russians were in on it in exchange for wheat
"Appeal to common sense"
"In my uninformed layperson's opinion..."
"Citing an unnamed source"
"I can't do the math but I can tell just by looking at it..."
"Compartmentalization"
The center square will be "I'm just asking questions". The center square is supposed to be a freebie but since HBs always start off with that it is in all practicality a freebie.

What's the prize if we win?

[Chew]

You get to post "Bingo! We've heard the same lame arguments that were debunked decades ago so many times before we realized we could play bingo with them so we did. Here's my card:" <insert screencap of card.>

Or fame and glory.

Or a pair of sweatsocks.

Your choice.

[LunarOrbit]

I'm thinking about making a playing card for this. Do I make one card that everyone can use, or do the "lame arguments" have to be placed in different squares for each person so we don't all yell "BINGO!" at the same time? The first option is obviously a lot easier for me, but less fun.

[Chew]

Yeah, the squares should be randomized, except the center square. But how do we use them? Make a screen cap then use Paint or Gimp to mark them off? Or a website we can bookmark and that lets us mark squares as we find them, i.e. it's interactive? Maybe use Google Docs spreadsheet?

Of course, being the sciency types we'll have to back-up our claims with links to the posts where the HB made the claim.

[Noldi400]

Most likely he started several years ago with a naive belief and sincere doubts, based on ignorance and distrust (a political agenda?) that the NASA Apollo Moon missions were faked.

And at some point, fell in with bad companions - Kaysing and Ralph. Somehow he seems to have latched on to Ralph Rene as a mentor. All hope may have been lost at that point.

==================================================

To the "Strong" and "Weak" arguments I should have added another category, my personal favorite: "Bewildering" arguments. Like this gem (paraphrased): In the diagram of the LM tether system, the tether would obviously pull the astronaut off-balance to the left. So how could they have possibly piloted the LM?

==================================================

If we need more Bingo items, so we can make up different cards, do we need more lame/hackneyed arguments? I'll contribute:

"Kubrick"
"Fake Dutch moon rock"
Any claim of engineering or physics credentials by someone who doesn't understand grade-school level science.

<sup>Cuz I really need a pair of those sweatsocks.

Edited for spelling.</sup>

[Chew]

"Kubrick"
"Fake Dutch moon rock"
Any claim of engineering or physics credentials by someone who doesn't understand grade-school level science.

Good ones! "Kubrick" Heh. That can be shorthand for anything from Dark Side of the Moon.

"Orbital mechanics fail"
"Thermodynamics fail"
"Newtonian law of motion fail"

[Abaddon]

Dammit "Appeal to common" sense was one of mine.

"Appeal to Gubmint Infallibility/Omnipotence"
"Appeal to Gubmint Incompetence"

Note: These must go in the same line/column.

ETA:

"400,000 individuals were in on it."
"Compartmentalisation meant no-one but 6 at the top really knew about it."

These must also go on the same line or column.

Do diagonals count?

[Luke Pemberton]

Can we make "C-rock" the trump word? If it appears, it's house be default. Simply because it has to be the most absurd, ridiculous, crazed, bananas, utterly moronic theory every proposed. Others may include

Double film speed.
Astronauts on wires.
Front projection.
Waving flag.
Fall off.
Faked telemetry.

[Luke Pemberton]

I'm thinking about making a playing card for this. Do I make one card that everyone can use, or do the "lame arguments" have to be placed in different squares for each person so we don't all yell "BINGO!" at the same time? The first option is obviously a lot easier for me, but less fun.

I like the idea of producing randomised cards for everyone. It could be done with a spreadsheet.

[Abaddon]

Can we make "C-rock" the trump word? If it appears, it's house be default. Simply because it has to be the most absurd, ridiculous, crazed, bananas, utterly moronic theory every proposed. Others may include

Sorry, no. We can't do that. Everyone would mark that square.

Then again, we would all be winners.

[Zakalwe]

"No blast crater"
"Hassleblad film would get hot/cold"
"Lunar rocks returned by robot"

 

[Luke Pemberton]

Then again, we would all be winners.

That's the point. If anyone brought the C-rock argument to forum, it would be like the super word because it is the most
idiotic theory ever proposed. I have yet to see it presented here, but might be wrong. The stupid burns that much when the C-rock is mentioned it finishes the game by default, as I don't think I could take the thread seriously any more. Anyone that still believes the C-rock needs putting out of their misery.