Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?

[Bob B.]

Which explains why he totally ignored my message pointing to the NASA document giving the detailed (and I mean detailed) trajectory for the Apollo 11 mission.

He was given several sources and ignored them all.  First Jay directed him to Apollo by the Numbers.  Then he cried "Can you please post the specific translunar injection claimed by NASA", to which I posted the actual data.  He then responded with "What I actually said is that NASA does not publish any detailed information on the translunar injection trajectories. I wasn't referring to books written by propagandists. I want NASA's data so I can use it to prove they lied like they do about nearly everything else."  To this Jay pointed out that Apollo by the Numbers is written by a NASA employee and published by NASA.  I then directed him to this document and ka9q directed him to this document.  He didn't acknowledge any of it and soony afterward flounced.

I do have to say that some of my most satisfying moments in arguments with hoaxers is when I give them a piece of data they've been screaming for in the mistaken belief that it doesn't exist.

That happens all the time.  It comes from blindly believing what the hoax merchants say without doing any real research.

[Luke Pemberton]

Aside from the entire scientific method versus historical event argument, the fact that he howled more and more when given references on a plate rather makes his original post title redundant. By ignoring the evidence he falsified his own question. I'm rather stating the obvious now. I'm not going to get into armchair diagnoses, but is he just an ubertroll?

[darren r]

Aside from the entire scientific method versus historical event argument, the fact that he howled more and more when given references on a plate rather makes his original post title redundant. By ignoring the evidence he falsified his own question. I'm rather stating the obvious now. I'm not going to get into armchair diagnoses, but is he just an ubertroll?

I think that his motivation is the same as many other Hoax Believers, no matter how much they try to dress it up in scientific terms : their disbelief comes from a skewed political or philosophical standpoint. They cannot accept that Apollo happened because, as they see it, it's tainted by its inextricable links with the United States, its government, military and so on. That's why they always throw 9/11, JFK, the Gulf of Tonkin and (a new one) the Battle of the Alamo into the mix.

We can throw as much evidence at them as we like, but they won't accept it because they are fundamentally opposed to the idea that the US is capable of being honest about anything.

[JayUtah]

Trolls generally don't take themselves seriously.  Their sole aim is to stir up mischief and attract attention any way they can.  Yes, that can take the form of patently incoherent and illogical approaches.

I really don't think that's what Romulus is aiming for.  I think he's the kind of conspiracy theorist who doesn't need much logic or coherence in his beliefs as long as he can maintain the illusion that he's absolutely brilliant and has everything figured out, and that all his life's troubles are due to oppression and malfeasance on others' part.  My gut feeling tells me he's the kind of person who really needs the fantasy construct for ego reinforcement.

[Luke Pemberton]

I think that his motivation is the same as many other Hoax Believers, no matter how much they try to dress it up in scientific terms : their disbelief comes from a skewed political or philosophical standpoint. They cannot accept that Apollo happened because, as they see it, it's tainted by its inextricable links with the United States, its government, military and so on.

Yes, there is all of the above of course and I agree that this fits the profile of many Apollo CTs I have encountered. There are those where the above resonates loudly, but there are those where untangling their motives is complex. Romulus was hell bent on making it very personal and from an early point made it clear that his intelligence was greater than any of us at this board. Even his ID suggests a position of self-grandeur. I'm not entirely sure his motives were so anti-US.

Now that the debate is well established at this little corner of the internet I am more convinved that the motive is to 'take on' Jay, Phil Plait and others. There is almost a dragon slaying mentality about the Apollo hoax now. This a negative position for the CTs, as it illustrates that they are gunning for those that have inflicted the most damage to the CT arguments.

Jarrah White shows the same m.o. Any challenge to the argument and he descends in a self aggrandising manner with personal barbs mixed in for good measure.

That's why they always throw 9/11, JFK, the Gulf of Tonkin and (a new one) the Battle of the Alamo into the mix.

Yes, let's not forget the Alamo.

[smartcooky]

This behaviour is nothing new. Romulus simply tried to narrow the confines of his argument so tight that he could simply hand wave away any evidence that he deemed inapplicable to what he was trying to argue. It is somewhat analogous to a lawyer in a trial demanding only a "yes" or "no" answer to a question so that the witness cannot add other relevant information that the lawyer doesn't want revealed. Then of course, Romulus throws his toys out of his cot when we redirect or elaborate anyway.

As for his is BS about applying the sceintific method to an historical event like Apollo, well that is just yet another blatant attempt at shifting the burden of proof away from the conspiracy theorist. His idea falls over on two basic points...

1. The Oxford English Dictionary (as good a reference as any) defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." How can we "observe" a historical event from the past? How can we "measure" the event. How can we perform experiments on that event?

2. The available evidence that Apollo took place is overwhelming; those who say it didn't happen have the burden to prove it did not happen, i.e. they have to prove that the TV broadcasts, the photographs, the radio transmissions etc, were all faked, and that the public and about half a million people who were involved have been duped.

[Bob B.]

... and (a new one) the Battle of the Alamo

I haven't heard that one.  What are they saying about the Alamo?

[darren r]

I haven't heard that one.  What are they saying about the Alamo?

Romulus made a reference to the long-standing controversy about the exact circumstances of Davy Crockett's death - whether he died fighting (per the 1960 movie) or was captured and executed (which is the scenario the 2004 movie went with).

[gillianren]

... and (a new one) the Battle of the Alamo

I haven't heard that one.  What are they saying about the Alamo?

If it's the one I'm thinking of, that David Crockett (what historians call him; Davy Crockett is what they call the folk hero variant of the historical figure) didn't go out in a blaze of glory but instead surrendered and was executed.  The evidence seems to pretty strongly support that latter point, unless you're a Texan, apparently.

[Chief]

Had a win on the weekend.

It was my youngest brother's bachelor party and naturally when a large group of men get together and drink, one of them is bound to come up with one conspiracy or another.

Apollo came up, but with some really old arguments, flags, shadows etc. So not satisfied with just debunking them I actually gave him some of the more sophisticated CT arguments and then told him why they were wrong as well. I gave him a lot to think about and he wants links to Clavius and Apollohoax, but he was pretty happy with my responses. Now 9/11 on the other hand was a different story.......

[Count Zero]

I do have to say that some of my most satisfying moments in arguments with hoaxers is when I give them a piece of data they've been screaming for in the mistaken belief that it doesn't exist.

That's always been a reliable "tell" for the kind of person who shows up on a board.  For example, instead of asking, "Are there any pictures of the Earth taken from the Moon?" they ask, "Why aren't there any pictures of the Earth taken from the Moon?"  They are assuming instead of inquiring.

[JayUtah]

I haven't heard that one.  What are they saying about the Alamo?

I met Fess Parker once.  Does that count for anything?

[JayUtah]

That's always been a reliable "tell" for the kind of person who shows up on a board.  For example, instead of asking, "Are there any pictures of the Earth taken from the Moon?" they ask, "Why aren't there any pictures of the Earth taken from the Moon?"  They are assuming instead of inquiring.

Indeed, the Complex Question is a well-worn way of sneaking your premise past the opponent.  Phrased this particular way, it not only places the premise beyond easy argument, it turns the question into a debate over propriety and motive rather than fact.  Subjective questions like motive can be argued incessantly without resolution.  That serves the conspiracist's desire to prolong the debate rather than resolve it.

[Dr.Acula]

Quite. I really found it difficult to understand that NASA lied about everything yet he wanted the TLI data that NASA hadn't published so he could prove that they have lied about everything.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the laws of orbital mechanics well known, and wouldn't someone on the planet at the time be able to produce a set of orbital parameters for a TLI and simply publish them. The entire idea that he wanted their data (that he did not trust) to prove that they had lied was bizarre in the circumstances of his claim. I never quite understood this position.

I think the TLI is very well known. There was a publication in 1963 by Albert (Arthur ?) Schwaninger about that. Even Henri Poincaré wrote about it at the end of the 19th century. And this was a research of about two minutes.

[Dr.Acula]

I think that his motivation is the same as many other Hoax Believers, no matter how much they try to dress it up in scientific terms : their disbelief comes from a skewed political or philosophical standpoint. They cannot accept that Apollo happened because, as they see it, it's tainted by its inextricable links with the United States, its government, military and so on. That's why they always throw 9/11, JFK, the Gulf of Tonkin and (a new one) the Battle of the Alamo into the mix.

We can throw as much evidence at them as we like, but they won't accept it because they are fundamentally opposed to the idea that the US is capable of being honest about anything.

If this guy Romulus was really IDW (which I tend to believe), then there would be another standpoint. There is a religious standpoint. In a discussion on a YT channel he characterized himself as a follower of creationism.