Moving on - this comment about compartmentalisation, is that the old Need to know argument again?

Pretty much, which is just another example of how little the HB's actually know about the programme.

__________________
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 understand how compartmentalisation can hide secrets from the eyes of history. Sure, perhaps you can keep the guy that makes the O-rings in the dark, but what about those who study the Apollo hardware afterward and build new spacecraft based on it?

The problem for Joe is that he is currently up to his knee.

In this thread we had a long discussion along the lines of if one wanted to fake a moon rock (or a few hundred kilograms of them) how could one do it so that all of the hundreds of geologists who have studied them would be fooled. Our conclusion was that it could not be done.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

What he said was that he was not saying that he know anything for sure. I take this to mean that he is not saying he can prove it for sure.
What a person believes is not always easy to know. You can have the opinion that he was dishonest, but unless you prove it, I could believe that he was honest and both beliefs could be valid

I never said anything about an allegation of fact being a belief.

You seemed to imply that he did, which would be wrong.

If a person doubt that dragons exist, because he has never seen one, he has justified his belief. You seem to imply that such an opinion is invalid.

I guess i missed it. I will try to look for it later.

Then you can't decide either.


It might. But not here and not in the radio show.

appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Is that also how you do it?

Why do you think I need to consider that?

I consider myself independent thinking. I am not swallowing what he said, i considered his claim of doubt and concluded that his opinion is a valid one based on what he knows (or claim to know)
Why should I try to verify anything? I don't want to verify anything (right now).

He didn't say there was documents. He said it was documented that von Braun when to Antarctica and collected moon rocks and phil never proved this wrong. Could it be wrong, sure therorecticly anythings is possible. Does it prove anything? No.

What I think you are talking about, only apply if you can prove someone is lying to do harm. Which has not been proven.
Did you ever hear about free speech?
I hope they never make a law against that.

What characters are being ruined?
I think he was quit willing to hear counterarguments and did so.

Sure, that might be true.
I am not claiming that your failure to give proof is any kind of proof of anything.

Why do you all talk about his intellect then? Talk about knowledge then.
When you resort to name calling, you are talking about his intellect.

It seemed like that was what phil was doing (or trying to).

No, I think i would say: "Why do you think that?" (unless the reason was obvious). And the followup would depend on the reasons.

I would wonder about his reasons, that is why i would ask what they where.
unless of course i was guilty, then i would worry and try to dismiss him.

No. A correct interpretation would be that i feel it would be unfair if the "accused rock thrower" say; "you are stupid for believing that" without proving his reasons invalid. And if the "accused tried to justify his namecalling by saying "everyone in the village think i am not a rock thrower, it would still be unfair.

I don't think this last bit is an accurate analogy to the situation.
"The accuser" is saying, you didn't show me any evidence and therefore you didn't convince me that my beliefs are wrong. If a part of my (the rock throwers) alibi was based on that person that the accuser didn't trust, then i would not fault the rock thrower for his doubts, if i was a fair person.

It is not my issue, but you can try to prove that the moon rocks was picked up by humans on the moon.

What characters? Let's see, Von Braun, all Apollo astronauts, on a stretch everyone working on Apollo? The implication of what said is that they are liars, and on top of that Von Braun is a devilish person. Calling someone a professional fraud is ruining a character.

If he was listening to counterarguments, he has an amazing ability to shout and interrupt at the same time.

And yes, there is something called free speech. There is also something called slander. Publicly claiming somebody was fraudulous at his job without any evidence, is slander. Honestly expressing doubt is something else, that is free speech. Packaging firm statements as doubts or asking question is spineless slander.

The fact that Joe made zero argument for the non hoax site and interrupted Phil countless times makes me doubt he was only having doubts, asking questions and wanting to discuss them to have a clearer vision on it.

__________________
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.

Then what do you want to do?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Express doubts. For the heck of it.

__________________
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.

Well, that is boring.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

The fact that they aren't even his doubts makes it tedious as well.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Thanks, I'll go read that. As you can see, I'm pretty new here.

Indeed, the same doubts have already been expressed long ago. So there's no point in expressing them again just as a presentation. So the only reason to repeat them would be to get them cleared up or confirmed. But Joe didn't listen to Phil. I can only conclude that he hence was repeating these "doubts" not as doubts, but as firm statements he didn't want a discussion on. But on the other hand didn't dare to present as something else than doubts, so he didn't have to back them up.

__________________
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.

You can have the opinion that he was dishonest, but unless you prove it, I could believe that he was honest and both beliefs could be valid

No, because whether someone is honest or not is a testable fact. While both beliefs may be able to be held, only one is valid.

If a person doubt that dragons exist, because he has never seen one, he has justified his belief. You seem to imply that such an opinion is invalid.

How about a person that doubts that cows exist because they have never seen them? How about a person that still doubts after expressing those doubts and even goes as far as to refuse to listen to a dairy farmer who tries to explain why cows really do exist?

It might. But not here and not in the radio show.

Depends on what you mean by here, there are plenty of thread on this board dealing with them. As to the show, it's hard to refute something when you can't get a word in edgewise. Ask yourself this, if you were honestly wanting to know something, would you keep shouting over the top of the person trying to answer you?

appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Not if the authority is legitimate. Saying that Dr Van Allen claimed that manned travel through the Van Allen belts was no impossible is not an appeal to authority because he was qualified to know and was a legitimate authority. Saying that you know a PhD who believes that green unicorns like on the far side of the moon is a fallacy since the authority is both anonymous and unless they are a lunar biologist, there is no evidence of their qualifications to know that green unicorns live on the far side of the moon.

Is that also how you do it?

Ad hominen and poisoning the well.

Why do you think I need to consider that?

Because understanding why someone belives something helps you understand their argument.

I am not swallowing what he said, i considered his claim of doubt and concluded that his opinion is a valid one based on what he knows (or claim to know)

But he kept saying that he don't know. That means his opinion wasn't based on what he knows, but on what he doesn't know, or is he lying about not knowing? And if he doesn't know and has an uninformed opinion, what does that make you for agreeing with him?

Why should I try to verify anything? I don't want to verify anything (right now).

What's the point in being here then?

He said it was documented that von Braun when to Antarctica and collected moon rocks and phil never proved this wrong.

Burden of Proof shifting. It's not up to Phil to prove him wrong, he claims it's documented, it's up to him to show that it is.

I think he was quit willing to hear counterarguments and did so.

If shouting over the top of someone and not letting them answer is willing to listen, what do you consider unwilling?

No, I think i would say: "Why do you think that?"

Which is just a politer way to say "prove it."

__________________
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

What particularly disgusts me is the notion (and I know it's probably an ad hom but I'm mad enough so I don't care at the moment) that the Apollo astronauts placed their lives on the line to further the exploration of space, and a game show host/comic has the nerve to basically call them liars...

It really sickens me...even more so than people eating insects for money...

Why did Penn said that Joe Roagan , "is honest and looking for the truth"?
Can you listen again to what Joe Roagan said to Phil about Braun?
He said " Werner Von Braun is a Nazi!" A Huge, Evil, War Criminal!"
Does that sounded that Joe "thinks" Braun is a Nazi?"