I liked, nay, I *loved* the first interview, I had never heard about the radiation issues with the whole Apollo mission, it was truly fascinating stuff.

However, I feel that Phil totally dropped the ball in the second interview. Joe is a very good speaker, and Phil (and Penn for that matter) weren't assertive enough to cut through the BS, but they let Joe go off on a tangent for half an hour on whether or not Werner von Braun was sufficiently evil to have wanted to fake the Moon landing.

To quote the Simpsons, "No one who speaks German could be an evil man."

I'm sure it's fascinating for the Moon hoax people to listen to a NASA-sympathiser like Phil get stumped by the great 'antarctic expedition revalation', but for any clear-thinking person listening to the program this was a totally, TOTALLY irrelevant subject.

To let Joe yell into the mic that he simply could not believe Phil didn't know anything about this made it sound like his entire Moon hoax conspiracy theory hinged on this one piece of information.
But even Joe's hyperbolic explanation of its importance couldn't make it sound relevant at all, in my ears. He's read Phil's website so he knows better than to ask about things that have already been debunked. He needs more obscure info that Phil doesn't know about.

I may be wrong about this, but the way I see it, in the Moon hoax debate you have to keep moving to cover more ground, because if you get bogged down with irrelevant trivia (which usually has a reasonable explanation if you just research it, like the parallel shadow thing), then you're just wasting everybody's time.

We all know that the Moon hoax conspiracy is like Intelligent Design. They have no theory, all they can do is poke holes in tiny, insignificant places of established wisdom where there are things we cannot readily explain.
All these tiny holes they then think sum up to a big picture of what's going on, but they're just plain wrong. It's not a big picture, it's just a lot of tiny holes. Only in religion and conspiracy theories do you have to dismiss the grand argument if you can find one tiny fault in it.

When I look at any conspiracy sites, like Joe has, yeah there are some things that sound plausible. Some things are mysterious and some of the sites are veeeery cunning in the way that they do not overly extrapolate information from it - like they don't go from one insignificant fact into "therefore space aliens assassinated JFK!", they like to plant a lot of tiny seeds of doubt.

But when someone actually researches some of these small things and explain them logically and you then go back to the site and read again, suddenly the whole thing just smacks of a disingenious presentation of facts. Even the stuff that hasn't been officially debunked yet.


It completely boggles my mind the very idea that Joe can say that he looks at conspiracy sites and disagrees with a lot of the obvious lies and ridiculous arguments they make, but that SOME OF IT MAKES SENSE.
How can the majority of an argument be complete, total, utter (and verifiable) bull****, but *some* of the smaller points are good?
Has Joe ever seen this happen with any scientific theory before?

I think he's just deluding himself into thinking that there are some golden grains of truth amidst a mountain of rubbish. It's fool's gold at best.

With all that nonsense wrapped around small unsolved mysteries, I find it simply astonishing that Joe can't bring himself to question the veracity of those smaller points as well.
Is it that difficult to tell yourself, "Okay, let's see, these people are wrong about 99% of what they say to an almost criminal degree. Maybe, just maybe, they could be wrong about this too even though I don't know the explanation."

Incidentally, ask Joe how he feels about the 9/11 conspiracy sites, because these have the exact same format. Lots of verifiable flaws and a few small things that cannot be explained. Does Joe embrace these with the same fervor?
If Joe doesn't adhere to these other kinds of conspiracies like 9/11, space aliens, JFK assassination, etc. then why does he believe in the Moon hoax? It's the same arguments, it's the same flawed, circular logic that they use. They too have a lot of small points that no one has adequately explained yet.


To return to the second interview on Penn's show, hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but the best thing Phil could have done, in my opinion, was to ask Joe, "Alright, what's your next argument?"
Because if it all hinges on Werner exhibiting 'suspicious' activities by going to the Antarctic, that's a pretty lame basis, and there are certainly more interesting points to discuss that actually teach the listeners something (as opposed to arguing about precisely how bad a nazi Werner really was, did anyone learn anything from that?).

Also, I don't know where Joe got his research. I can find the antarctic mission mentioned in relation with Werner on a few credible sites, but as soon as I try to get more information about what the expedition was about, all I get are conspiracy sites with names like "Nazi UFO!!!" and sites talking about the mysterious magnetic energy signature in the area.

Does anyone have more details about the goal of this expedition and what they were doing there?


Finally, I found on Wikipedia, a site that Joe cited himself a few times, this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_von_Braun

I point specifically to the section:
Arrest_by_the_Nazi_regime

Which says that "he was arrested for being a defeatist by saying the war was not going well. He was held in prison without knowing the charges against him for 2 weeks. It was only through the Abwehr in Berlin that Dornberger was able to obtain von Braun's conditional release and Albert Speer, Reichsminister for Munitions and War Production, convinced Hitler to release von Braun so that the V-2 program could continue."

Further down, "Forging a set of orders on SS stationery, von Braun authorized a convoy to move 5,000 personnel south through war-torn Germany toward the American lines. The SS had meanwhile been ordered to kill the German engineers and destroy their records. The engineers, however, had hidden these in a mineshaft and continued to evade their own troops."

If you want to renounce this man for being inherently 'evil' like Joe said repeatedly for helping invent the V2 rockets that killed a lot of innocent people, you'd have to do the same to every gun manufacturer in the world too. Past and present.

Joe is either being inflammatory or he has no clue about the realities of war. His country is at war right now, and I think he would agree that for a Muslim to view him, personally, as an inherently evil man despite of anything Joe does, just because of what his government is doing in the Middle East, is a matter of perspective.
But you can't just drop the 'evil' argument, and Joe knows he can use this against Phil because it's a sacred cow. You cannot possibly say on the radio that you think Werner was not a bad nazi, because everyone will stigmatise you for it. So Joe wins.

But the Nazi's were not super-evil in some magical way, they just had the technology to be more sinister than any previous age had. And I think it's been shown repeatedly that the kind of totalitarian fascism that went on in that regime are easily repeatable, even in democratic societies. (revoking habeas corpus, the patriot act, etc.)

And again, I fail to see what this has to do with the Moon hoax. Alright, so the guy went to antarctica on an expedition in the middle of a heated space race. Why is it that Joe and the conspiracy nuts read this and instantly assume he was up to no good, and people like me read it and go "huh.. that's peculiar, but I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for it, that I simply don't know about."

Kind of the same approach I have towards quantum physics. I can't wrap my head around it, but that doesn't mean that some 100 scientists secretly got together and made the whole thing up just to mess with my head.


I hope Phil can bring more ammo to the next round of debate with Joe and tell him that just because he yells the loudest, doesn't necessarily mean he's right.

an excellent point

__________________
There is no dark side of the moon really, as a matter of fact it's all dark - Pink Floyd, The Dark Side Of The Moon

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.


Uhm. Pushing the entire planet into World War Two, for starters, a war that claimed the LIVES of 60 MILLION PEOPLE. What then, in the face of that could be considered good? Pulled Germany our of the Depression? HELLO? ****ing Britain is STILL PAYING OFF WAR DEBTS TO THE USA, NOW, in 2007 for a war that happened...how many years ago, and you think this is a good fycking thing?

You know, I am willing to front the Germans for the good stuff that they did, but the bad really overshadows that, and by a huge amount. Starting and being the cause of WW2 nullifies any good will that the Germans could have built up with VW cars, the Authobahn, and engineering that really is just **** by any metric.

Germans and Muslims, sides of the same coin, no?

This is a family board, so please watch your language. Intentionaly mispelt curse words are simply not allowed.

Also, this strays into political territory. Lets stay on topic.

I altered some words- Quote is not direct.
Id like to go ahead and comment on this post.

Why would a person comment about the Nazis with the statement "I'll probably get vilified for this..."? He KNEW poeple would flip but felt the need to make a very valid point.

The "Nazi's" were made up of Germans. Ordinary Germans. With the Nazi's in POWER it was extremely hard for those who didnt agree with the nazi's policies to fight back or speak out against it.

The Point? MOST Germans hated the Nazi Party too after it revealed its evil. But saying Germans- Muslims same thing is WAY out of line. You are saying all Germans are evil because of the Nazi's. You are saying all Muslims are evil because of extremist terrorists. That kind of hate makes you into exactly that which you hate. You are no Better.

The Germans were not evil or bad people. And the nation produced a lot of good too- from the good people.
ROGAN claimed that Van Braun was affiliated with Nazi's and must therefor be EVIL.
Therein lies the point. Someone else also posted that if Van Braun was a Nazi- Then Oskar Schindler was also a Nazi.
Lastly- You are not the first person i have seen post about the War Debt. WHAT is all this WINING about the War Dept? As a service provider and a contractor- my customers call me for things they didnt expect. A pipe broke or their house flooded. They didnt ask for it. They didnt expect it. They are the victim right? Why should they have to PAY me to fix it?
Because a debt is a debt. An honorable man pays his debts. He doesnt push them off on others. He accepts RESPONSIBILITY for his Home!! That is part of being a homeowner.
And considering that it took fifty years- i wonder how high or low they payments were- and what the interest was.

I got my tags wrong. It's a quote, dingleberry.

And it was perfectly legal for ordinary Germans to disobey orders if such orders were immoral. German military respected this, oddly enough. And I never said Germans equal Muslims, that's a machination of your own device.

I was referring to the removal of your vulgar langauge in your quote. In their place you will see (word deleted)

Is Dingleberry an insult or term of endearment? I do not understand ....

Where you get that idea blows my mind... Cites please?
Im not sure the SS i was taught about were a friendly and open minded crowd that had no problem with rebels.

Really!?

thats funny...

Let's say that von Braun really was an evil Nazi. Can the claim that the moon landings happened survive such a fact?

Hmmm, I think would agree with you, considering how the 1944 attempt to overthrow the Nazi Government ended I'd say: yes, the Gestapo (and the SS) where a bunch of friendly chaps.

Like everything we humans do, amongst the horrors the Nazis did, they also did things worthy of admiration. Not that I am for them, as far as I am concerned we are better off without them. The scars they left on their own people (not to mention all they did to everybody else in those days) are still with us today, I remember talking to a German friend of mine (quite young, in those days, he must be in his mid 30s these days) a few years ago, he was complaining that in Germany nothing ever happened, I answered him "well you already had plenty happening", and he replied "Well yes, Adolf and all that" to which I answered "I was referring to the OTHER 1000 years of history".

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

Sigma Orionis post after yours is worthy of note.


But to calrify- the reason others stated- and for myself in agreeing and defending the point: A LOT of GOOD people were affiliated with the nazi party. Proclaiming them evil by default when they lived in fear is nonsense.

If Van Braun REALLY was an evil Nazi im sure my opinion of him may become quite Unmentionable.
It ALSO proves nor Disproves anything about the claim that Apollo was a hoax.
These are unrelated events that Rogan used to cast doubt- when he lacked any Proof. "Its WEIRD!", he proclaimed.
Whether he was or was not- its not Weird. Its unrelated.


To make a point however is NOT a disqualification of a Granted idea that was placed on hold to make the point:

The true Nazi's WERE evil and the atrocities they commited go far beyond any words, sympathy or regret for Earth.
The absolute horrror and darkness of the Nazi Party have indeed left scars that will torment humanity for a very long time.

Following the terror, pain and tragedy of WWII
not only peace and rebuilding
But APOLLO
These missions were more than just a Space Race. Neil Armstrong's words were powerful: "Thats one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind."
A question that i often ask friends or strangers that are haunted by their past is: (pay attention to the way it is worded here...) "What will it take for you to Walk OUT of Your History?"
After the darkness of a very tragic war came an event that set the stage and standard for where we were going to go from there. We Walked on the Moon! The Inspiration of Apollo will touch generations for centuries- our first tenous steps...
Hitler is Dead. But Apollo will live forever.
For those that deny Apollo...
They are denying MUCH MUCH more than just some missions. They are denying the defeat of an age. They are denying our ingenuity, intellect, aspirations to succeed - to go above and beyond- To touch the stars. They are denying humanity.

I will now invoke Godwin's Law:

The National Socialists were a bunch of Nazis.

(I thought this thread could use a little lightening)

__________________
Carl Matherly

Offical Battlestar Galactica Apologist

Named Time Magazine's 2006 "Person of the Year"

Well said, Godwin's Law is as inmutable as the Laws of Thermodynamics

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

It ALSO proves nor Disproves anything about the claim that Apollo was a hoax.
These are unrelated events that Rogan used to cast doubt- when he lacked any Proof.

So, can we all agree, then, that we do not have to sing the praises of the Nazi party in order to defend the authenticity of the moon landings?

I can agree on that, but in agreeing I do not want to pass the valid points that

a) the argument von Braun = nazi member = evil person is false in itself and as a hoax argument
b) the arguments made for the good things (indeed overshadowed by the bad things) the nazi party did were valid.

But indeed we do not need the nazi party to be good OR bad to defend Apollo, nor can Joe use nazi = bad to defend the hoax theory. With all due respect, but even if von Braun would have himself killed 60 million people, it doesn't say a thing about Apollo. And on top of that, his argument is false also in itself, as history shows Von Braun wasn't the very very devilishly bad nazi horror figure Joe wants him to be.

And for those having any doubt on it: I am totally against all war crimes done during WW2 and do not think of the extreme level to which the nazi ideology went in general as anything positive AT ALL.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

By no means was ANYONE singing the praises for the Nazi party.
People (self included) ABHOR that history and the Nazi's. BUT it WAS mentioned as a reality check.
Nicolas defines that reality in his post previous to mine.

I meant to talk about this from the perspective of debate strategy. When the issue of von Braun's association with the Nazi party comes up, should we take the time to do a reality check, etc. on the Nazi party? Is that a relevant topic that has to be addressed?

I think a way to deal with it, is assuming that Von Braun indeed did kill 60 million people personally. And then ask where the evidence against Apollo is in that. Another way is first demanding evidence that Von Braun was indeed an evil man, not just nazi party member, and only after that(assuming he can back up that part) ask to derive evidence against apollo from that.

In any case the argument and backing it up remains his task, not ours.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.