A new member at Apollohoax has launched a scathing attack on our own BA! His username is frankmat. Check out his post at

http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/vie...orum=12&22

and

http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/vie...forum=12&0

Anyone know who he is?

Feel free to rip shreds out of his arguments, but don't be nasty cos he'll say we're picking on him.

__________________
Things are only impossible until they're not!-Captain Jean-Luc Picard

Admin of the new and very much improved Apollohoax forum

I made my attempt. Yet another wacko who thinks he's got all new effective arguments but in reality just regurgitates the same old boring crap.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

At first blush, it amazes me that people can make the same arguments over and over again, claiming loudly that they are right.

But then I remember that someone who falls for the claims of Kaysing, Sibrel, and the rest may not have the strongest critical thinking abilities. It's a fascinating problem. I liken it to a one-way sign at the entrance to a cul-de-sac: once you're in, you're in. If you can't think critically about an argument, then no amount of logic can get you to simply back out.

The problems with debunking nonsense in general are legion. I worry about the general public who can be taken in by a slick argument, and who don't go to another source to find out if what they are hearing is right. I think of these people as "third level" in the nonsense business; they are basically consumers. The "first level" people are those like Kaysing, Sibrel, and Hoagland, the ones really pushing this garbage.

This "frankmat" person is "second-level"; someone who has been duped by the nonsense, and recycles it. In a way, they are the worst of all. The first-level people may be fraudulent, or sincere (but horribly misguided). The third-level just haven't been taught how to think critically.

But the second-level ones... they argue so vehemently, yet they never really think about what they are arguing. Or they do, but they don't think critically about it. It's almost a religion to them. People like Hoagland and Sibrel are almost worshiped (note how frankmat uses Rene's name in his post), and used as argument from authority.

I have found that in general, the second-level kind of person has an arrogance that's stultifying as well. They are so adamant that they are right and that I (or Jay or whoever) is a shill, or flunkie, or liar... the irony is palpable.

Note that I am not trying to label people, I am just making very general categories. Sometimes it helps to think of it this way. But I have also found that there is no sharp dividing line between these folks, and a lot of common characteristics are shared.

Well, the gang are giving frankmat all the answers he doesn't want to hear. I wonder how he will counter such arguments? Or if he will answer at all. Maybe he'll just get abusive? Or disappear never to be heard from again? He has obviously read the BABB, so I wonder if he's ever posted here under a different username? Still, it will be fun to see how it all pans out.

__________________
Things are only impossible until they're not!-Captain Jean-Luc Picard

Admin of the new and very much improved Apollohoax forum

I sorted the memberlist by e-mail address and there doesn't appear to be anyone with the same address as frankmat. Although, there are two that might fit, one has never posted and the other posted 4 times in the General Astronomy section.

I did a quick search on google for "frankmat" and found this. It looks like he uses arguments copied from others. Come to think of it, when was the last time a HB came up with any new argument.

Interestingly, most of the creationists who show up on talk.origins are the same way: parroting standard arguments (frequently with great chunks of quoted but unattributed text) with great confidence as if the regulars have never heard them before.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

You know funnily enough most of the Evolutionists and "Errors in the Bible" I deal with do the same. If I hear anyone else go on about nylon eating bacteria, peppered moths, whale pelvises, Junk DNA, embryos all being alike or 100 vistigal organs in the human body, I think I'll start hitting people with textboks.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

That's probably a fair point, too: people who are quick to challenge arguments that disagree with their views can be blindly accepting of arguments that support them.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

this is in my books what seperates the w..w..s from the others

if i make a mistake,im willing to admit it(i certainly make more than a few lol)

TBA has made mistakes-ive seen some-he says woops i (insert a word here) up and goes on

while the others that have a `paid debunker' attitude will never ever ever admit they made a mistake

#-o

__________________
Surely if you are going to start a conspiracy theory it is best to start with something that might have a grain of truth or reality in it. To start with the preposterous and go downhill from there is just stupid. steve(primus) (Avatar)

not normally this chatty :-)

but this one really made me laugh

jeez my elcheapo mobile with a noise cancelling mic can make me sound like im sitting in my loungechair at 100km/hr with the window open

and im not even wearing a helmet over the mic ;-)

google `noise cancelling microphones'

or see any mobile phone add(and they all will gimme the phone for free *)

haate that * bit tho


that quote above isnt just wrong its bad wrong and thats bad

__________________
Surely if you are going to start a conspiracy theory it is best to start with something that might have a grain of truth or reality in it. To start with the preposterous and go downhill from there is just stupid. steve(primus) (Avatar)

boppa,

The other bothersome thing about that quote is the guy goes off criticizing BA for not mentioning the lack of sound, while all the time BA was responding to the specific claim about there not being a blast crater beneath the LM. BA isn't making a comprehensive debunking of the hoax theory, he is refuting the specific issues from the Fox program and is limiting his discussion to those items. This type of diversionary of ranting is typical with the HBs. It is often hard to keep them on topic.

Wow. I went over there and there were hardly even any bones left, let alone any meat on the bones. :P

BA isn't making a comprehensive debunking of the hoax theory, he is refuting the specific issues from the Fox program and is limiting his discussion to those items.

Yes, changing horses. I called him on it a couple of times. In a refutation you can limit yourself to the point at hand. But in a "pro" argument you have to relate all the points. If your Point A contradicts Point M, then you need to reconcile that in the discussion of either A or M.

It is often hard to keep them on topic.

Very much so. Few of them really have the detailed knowledge to understand their own arguments, much less deal with a refutation of them. So when it becomes clear to them that their critic knows more about, say, rocket stability than they do, they abandon that point and move on to something else.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

PhantomWolf said:
I bet textboks hurt.

Interesting comparison. There is some validity to your point. In both cases, the same standard arguments and refutations circulate, through similar methods. Just like our moon hoax rebuttals here circulate through the same process. First we see a claim that we don't understand, that the moon landings were hoaxed. And something about the presentation makes us scratch our heads and wonder. So we find this site (and several others) that address the claim and show why it is faulty. Aha! So we hang around to learn more, and look at other claims. Then along comes someone new who starts with the claim we first came with, and we know the response we were given. So we quickly pass along that bit of information we learned. Now, is this a legitimate practice?

Sure, that is learning and sharing what we've learned. So what's wrong about the conspiracists? Well, they grab onto the questionable claim and won't accept any explanation. They refuse to learn more.

How does this apply in the evolution/creation situation you mention? In your example, the evolution arguers have seen some standard claim against it, and seen some refutation that worked for them. So they naturally pull out the example they have learned and share it.

The real question is 1) are you asking the same old creationist canards that have already been asked and answered, or do you have a different take on it that hasn't been considered? 2) Is their standard refutation correct and appropriate, or can you show a fault in the response? Of course that's not really the topic here.

Could there be another level of HB, especially non-US HBs, where they distrust anything said or done by the US Government, and consider them the great Satan. The failure so far to find physical WMD's in Iraq seems to feed their distrust

As well as the standard HB, this could include those who claim that Bush and co organised 9/11 (I heard one person this weekend intervied on BBC Radio 4 claim this).

Or is this just another variant of a class 3 HB ?

Why? If the US gov would have faked the whole thing intentionally, they surely would have also placed some WMDs somewhere to be "found" later by their troops...

Harald

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

And what are your objections to the above?

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

I was tempted to ask that question myself, but I figured it was just a shot.

Do not feed the trolls! [-X

__________________
Anyone who believes in the warning of the bible (prophecies concerning the end time which is now) shall be benefited from my invention. Because they won't be stupid enough to pass this! -Alex Chiu

The only problem is if you are using a competantly written book it will contain all of the above. Maybe we should burn the books instead, you know to keep people from thinking and stuff.

__________________
Light is faster than sound. "That's why some people appear bright until they speak"

WWGD (What Would GLP Do)

Inspected by #13

As a general reply to the topic heading, who here is suprised?

It happens here on his own board so on another board it shouldn't be very surprising either.

__________________
Light is faster than sound. "That's why some people appear bright until they speak"

WWGD (What Would GLP Do)

Inspected by #13