I note Rogan's thinking concerning Von Braun: Nazi = Evil!!!

He appearently knows next to nothing about Von Braun himself, relaying on what HB sites tell him.

I encountered the "Von Braun went to Antartica to get moon rocks" bit before as part of a book; "The Bathroom Reader's Guide". Or something like that. It held a multitude of little articles in it. Whenever something mentioned Apollo, it added in paranethesis "Or did we/he?". Appearently, including the moon hoax theory was just a rouse to entice sales.

Anyway, it seems odd for someone that says that he's not a scientist or expert of any kind to speak with the authority he did concerning the subjects. It seems typical HB behavior; a feeling of superiority because he's rebelling against a common belief (in case of Apollo, of course, it's a fact!).

__________________
I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid...and I went ahead anyway. - Crow T. Robot

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Is Pen completely blind to the fact that Rogan keeps interupting?? Come on!

And BA, would it be too much to ask for you to stand up for yourself a little more? Tell that guy to sit down and shut up

I'm having a lot of trouble with Penn believing that Rogan was being "sincere" in his "questioning". (ie. "I don't know if they went or not"). Rogan's behavior was demonstratively pro-hoax. I thought Penn was smarter than that.

Now just because Rogan behaved in an unseemly manner doesn't mean that the BA should resort to
those same "tactics"...and make no mistake, the constant interruption WAS a tactic. Every time Phil started to make a point, Rogan would change the subject or interject a nonsequiter(sp). Not only was it a "tactic"...it was an HB tactic.

Rogan was far from being an unbiased observer asking questions...he gave all indications of being a true believer.

Rogan's "debating style" (if you can call it that) reminded me of the little "yappy" dogs that nip at your heels...one swift kick* usually takes care of them.



(*I am not advocating that anyone should kick Joe Rogan...then again, he might benefit from the Aldrin treatment. )

fine. good point.

Then my only suggestion (I hope the BA reads this) is to do what politicians do. Pick a point and stay on it. When he changes the subject, say "please don't change the subject, we're still talking about X"

Politicians do that so that an interviewer can't get them off their talking points. They also do it because it's effective. Repetition works.

So Rogan leads with the Van Allen Belts. The BA should stay on the VA belts until Rogan concedes. When Rogan says something like, "oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well what about the stars man? What about that? Why are there no stars man? Omg!"

Then the BA should say, "stop changing the subject. You choose to lead with the VAB and we are going to stay with that." And then continue with whatever the BA had to say before he was interrupted.

The tactic that Rogan uses is to throw out 100 little easy things that the BA can explain, but never give him the chance to explain them. But because they are little easy things, the BA got off track.

I don't know. The whole thing just makes me angry. Rogan is just a bully.

I thought it was telling how many times Rogan used the phrase "I don't know". If he doesn't know anything about Apollo and admits as much, why is he running his mouth?

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

You are correct. Joe has established without doubt that he is firmly entrenched with the anti-NASA/anti-science side, and will not budge - facts and evidence be damned. I've seen it and heard it too many times. I know how these hardcore CT's think and behave, and he exhibits all those characteristics. You'll be hard-pressed to even get one of them to admit they're wrong about a single point, let alone convert to the side of truth.

Yep, he's a gonner.

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

Correction: It already HAS happened. Did anyone happen to catch the train wreck that was The Man Show after Rogan took over?

Ye Gods!

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

This only served to prove that loud-mouthed simpletons like Joe Rogan will always trump accomplished geeks like Phil. When debating with someone like Joe, it doesn't matter what you say as much as how you say it. Phil assumed he was talking to someone who wanted to be educated, when in reality Joe wanted nothing more than to put a "snobby scientist" in his place. I've seen a clip of Joe Rogan verbally destroying some woman who made a comment at one of his routines. She made the mistake of feeding the flame, and there was no level to which Joe would not stoop to humiliate her.

Phil, never argue with an idiot: they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I also just lost considerable respect for Penn.

Did you guys catch round 1? It went much better for Phil. Phil had Rogan on the ropes most of the time.

I don't think Penn has the same experience as we do with conspiracy theorists. He took Rogan's, "I am not saying I am an expert, but..." as a sign of humility instead of the cheap debating tactic it is.

That was exactly my take on it also. His pretense of being a "neutral observer" only interested in the truth was laughable. Rogan is not very adept at hiding his agenda.

ROFL! I love that. Mind if I use it as a tag?

Me too. For supposedly being such a logical, science-minded skeptic in his HBO shows, and particular the one dealing with the moon hoax, he certainly never showed that same critical thinking here. Every time he chimed in, it was to support one of Rogan's fantasies or to stroke his ego. What's going on in that "relationship" exactly?

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

"Non sequitur."

Yeah, what's up with Penn? Penn has never had a problem with being rude, so surely he could say, "Sit down and shut up."

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

There is no one as expert on a subject as the man who knows nothing about it. He is not the least constrained by knowledge, experience, or facts; his conjecture knows no limit.

And, if he likes the sound of his own voice, there is nothing to keep him from expressing his opinion.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Go ahead. It isn't really mine. I heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another ... you get the point.

The whole Nazi thing was obnoxious, too. Whether he was a Nazi or not is irrelevant. People like to think of Nazis as the epitome of evil, when it was really the Nazi Regime that had evil policies/goals. Individuals, for the most part, were just trying to live their lives. But somehow having any sort of relationship to Nazis makes a person forever suspect.

Joe Rogan is just a blowhard with self-confidence issues. Being put to rights by a nerd like Phil is a threat to his image and he will do anything to defend himself. I'm just really surprised that Penn doesn't recognize this. Perhaps he is afraid to be standing at the sharp end of Joe's razor tongue.

People like to think of Nazis as the epitome of evil, when it was really the Nazi Regime that had evil policies/goals.

I'll probably get vilified for this, but they had a lot of good policies and goals as well. A lot of people only see they evil they did (and true it did eclipse the good) such as pulling Germany out of the depression, building the autobahns, creating VW, getting German engineering and manufacturing to world class levels and numerous other things all that benefited the people. No regime is entirely evil, they all started out having good intentions, but as is said, the path to hell is paved with good intentions, and unfortunately a lot of people in powerful positions have ended up abusing that power and then gone off the rails in terrible ways.

__________________
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

I don't think that this can cause me to lose any respect for Penn Jillette. It seemed to me that he was letting the debate take it's course, and any time that Rogan would get a little to loud, he would chime in with some sort of rephrasal of Joe's question to allow the BA some time to answer.

I really enjoyed the way that Goudeoux (Penn's co-host) would jump in occasionally with support of the BA when a Rogan claim was totally ludicrious.

After listening to Round 1, I honestly thought that Joe Rogan was interested in facts. After this bout, I see that there is no way that the evidence can convince him. He can accept the hoax without any real scrutiny and live the rest of his life in denial of one of the greatest moments in human history. I pity him.

Joe, for pete's sake, look at the evidence!!!

The whole 'Von Braun in Antactica to collect moon rocks' is one of the most bizarre of all of the HB claims (and that is really saying something!).

This form of argument was being discussed in the retroreflector thread. Rogan tries to trump Phil's evidence with a deductive or categorical argument. That form of rebuttal is out of place here.

As I remember, the exchange went something like this:

1. Phil mentions the moon rocks as evidence in favor of the authenticity of Apollo.
2. Rogan brings up Von Braun's trip to Antarctica.
3. Phil points out that lunar meteorites don't look like the Apollo samples.
4. Rogan switches horses and mentions that some lunar sample were retrieved robotically.
5. Penn points out to Rogan that his Von Braun and robotic arguments are mutually exclusive.
6. Rogan acknowledges that and says, "But both arguments do cancel out the absolute proof that the moon rocks come from the moon."

Rogan argues in terms of logical possibility. The number of logical possibilities is perhaps infinite. Among them are the possibilities that Von Braun retrieved the rocks, or that a robot retrieved them. Logically, it doesn't matter that the possibilities are absurd.

Rogan's logical possibilities carry absolutely no weight here. Historical investigations are not pursued or argued categorically. Phil's argument--if he would have had an opportunity to state more of it--would have consisted of presenting the explanation that best explains and is best supported by the existing evidence.

Conspiracy theorists are masters at subverting a debate. Instead of looking at the evidence, they trick you into trying to come up with the one killer, smoking-gun proof of the moon landings. As Neverfly points out, whatever you say, they just cast doubt on it. They imagine other possibilites, or they find anomalies or elements that puzzle them.

The balance in the debate is truly bizarre: evidence and understanding on one side, imagination and ignorance on the other.

I wonder what would have happened after his release from the gulags, if Korolev had defected to the USA. Imagine what they could have achieved had he been working in partnership with von Braun...

They would have been able to bring back twice as many moon rocks from Antarctica!

Not if they're both false!

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Not if they're both false!

That's the urge that is hard to resist in a debate. The conspiracy theorist puts you in a position where you have to prove his possibilities false. You tend to give in because it is like shooting fish in a barrel. But it never ends, nor does it ever get anywhere.