I don't know if you remeber me or not, but I went around with some of you from this forum at the GLP forum on the subject of the Apollo saga. Apparently you have a low opinion of me around here, so I am here to attempt to vindicate myself and to present an alternate view, if that will be allowed here.
The forum rules there at GLP favored anarchy, making a one on one debate impossible. While disrespectful words were spoken from both sides, I am willing to forget the personal side of this and let by gones be just that. This subject is too important to remain unchallenged by a dynamic intellect capable of understanding the complex interactions involved, and I am convinced many of the posters on the above mentioned forum responding to my replies fall into this catagory.
I personally would like to engage Jay alone, because I believe otherwise I will be totally outnumbered and out manuevered on this forum, making a fair debate impossible.
I have new questions, and answers to old ones that were never adequately answered.
I know what the forum rules here are, and I agree to comply with them so long as we understand rules are meant to apply to everyone.

SO how 'bout it Jay? Do you accept my challenge to a one on one debate?

My intention is to present each arguement or point individually, one at a time so a conclusion on each can be reached in the readers' mind, and perhaps in the minds of the participants. Jay would be required to do the same in this format, that is he would present an arguement in Apollos' favor that I must attempt to respond to. When one of us agrees they've lost the particular point, we move on. I do not intend to win every arguement, but I DO intend to win a good percentage of them. I do not intend for Jay to admit what I have to say disproves the Apollo story, nor do I expect him to. Whether he or I wins this debate will be self evident.... IMHO if he refuses claiming some past offense against him on my part, I think we can all assume he feels inadequate to the task. I have all of those old posts archived, and I can assure you it was by no means a one sided personal attack launched by myself against Jay, but in fact members of BAD ASTRONOMY initiated the personal attacks

I'd just like to say that it sounds like a great idea, and I hope Jay agrees. As long as both parties adhere to forum rules and avoid ad-hominem attacks, I for one would look forward to such an exchange. You seem like a reasonable person, so it doesn't seem likely that the aforementioned will be a problem.

Your proposal to tackle each separate topic until resolution is reached, is in step with the preferred rules of engagement here. I must also admit, it's quite a welcome surprise to hear that kind of proposal coming from someone on the "other side" if you will, since HBs' typical strategy is to defend a position only until it's no longer defensible, at which point they rapidly change horses and hope no one notices.

__________________
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

It could be interesting or just like every other thread on the subject.

__________________
If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space.
Contact Carl Sagan

I personally would like to engage Jay alone, because I believe otherwise I will be totally outnumbered and out manuevered on this forum, making a fair debate impossible.

Fair debate is ensured by the rules of the board. They apply equally to all parties. Other conspiracy theorists who post here don't seem to have a problem making headway.

SO how 'bout it Jay? Do you accept my challenge to a one on one debate?

No, I don't. I will happily discuss any points you may wish to raise here. But I absolutely do not consent to exclude from a debate those who have a contribution to make, on either side of it. This is a forum for public debate, not for showboating or deck-stacking.

I am pleased that you are willing to submit to the admittedly strict rules of this forum. I think you'll find they'll safeguard your interests sufficiently. As for anything that might have passed at GLP, I'm willing to start with a clean slate.

IMHO if he refuses claiming some past offense against him on my part, I think we can all assume he feels inadequate to the task.

I decline, but not for that reason. I decline because the question of the authenticity of Apollo is a matter of ideas and facts, not a matter of individual charisma or skill. The intellectual process respects information and arguments from all sources. You seem to see this as a battle to be faced and fought rather than a question to be decided. It is that attitude to which I object.

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

Also, it's not as though Jay's the only one in possession of facts--or, indeed, as though Jay is in possession of all the facts, though he does have quite a lot of them. If I were watching a debate between fact (Apollo is real) and fantasy (Apollo was hoaxed), and I knew a piece of information that was relevant but the person, whomever it happened to be, debating fact didn't have, I would want to give that person the information, because Jay's right and it should be more about fact than personality.

__________________
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!"

The forum rules don't support one on one debateIW 0, Jay 1

OK, IW, whatcha got for round two!

You guys could go back & forth using PMs (with a moderator CC'ed), and then the moderator could post the dialogue when you both (or the mod) agree that the dialogue is concluded. I would be willing to wait.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

My intention is to present each arguement or point individually, one at a time so a conclusion on each can be reached in the readers' mind, and perhaps in the minds of the participants.

That degree of organization would be most uncommon and most welcome. As you may be aware, a major complaint against most conspiracy theorists is their inability to focus on one point. See the What happened on the Moon? thread for probably the worst example. If you are willing to commit to a single point until some manner of closure is reached, I think you'll find there are many here who will follow you in that commitment. I would certainly urge them to.

There are, of course, a few caveats to that approach.

First, an inductive proof is not concluded upon a point here and there, or even upon the several points considered individually. An inductive argument considers the totality of available evidence and arrives at a parsimonious conclusion that best explains that totality. So while distraction and evasion are clearly out of bounds, the nature of parsimony changes radically if the argument is considered a severable set of individual points.

Second, and subsidiary to the first, the typical alternative theory to explain Apollo evidence presents itself as an incomplete, disjoint, and often contradictory set of ad hoc scenarios that seem reasonable in the small, but fail in the large. So while it's laudable to want to stick to some point, most of the regulars here are attuned to the problems of the ad hoc approach and may press the larger question at regular intervals.

Put simply: even with your well-intended discipline, you'll still have to convince everyone that you have a coherent alternative to the customary theory, not just a list of random "inconsistencies" or "anomalies." I phrase those concerns as caveats rather than outright objections because I obviously have no way to to know exactly what you intend to say.

Jay would be required to do the same in this format, that is he would present an arguement in Apollos' favor that I must attempt to respond to.

That would occur naturally, I think. Which is to say: point, counterpoint, rebuttal, and rejoinder tend to occur without being formally bidden.

But the touchy hidden presumption is that the burden of proof would lie somewhere in the middle. I'm not sure if that's what you mean to say, but unfortunately it doesn't lie there. When you consider historical authenticity, the presumption has to be on authenticity and an accusation of fakery bears the overall burden of proof. There are clear epistemological reasons for this, but I won't bog down in them just yet.

Now before you despair, there are a lot of common hoax arguments for which we typically offer affirmative responses, which individually carry a small burden of proof. It's not as if we're trying to stack the deck. But any question of authenticity does not start off in the middle. It starts off on the side of authenticity.

Again, the folks here are highly-attuned -- perhaps even hypersensitive -- to inappropriate shifts in burden of proof. So again here you'll have to convince folks that you are willing to toe an appropriate line.

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

First, an inductive proof is not concluded upon a point here and there, or even upon the several points considered individually. An inductive argument considers the totality of available evidence and arrives at a parsimonious conclusion that best explains that totality. So while distraction and evasion are clearly out of bounds, the nature of parsimony changes radically if the argument is considered a severable set of individual points.

I did not understand that at all.

Re: The burden of proof and presumption of authenticity: I like to use the example of a traffic cop: The cop pulls you over and asks to see your driver's licence. You hand it to him, but he says it could be fake. You show him every other ID you have, and he says that they may be fake. You reproduce your signature and compare it to the IDs and he accuses you of being a talented forger. In court, you produce friends and family to vouch for your identity, and the cop says they are either liars or paid shills. He demands that you provide real incontrovertable evidence of your identity. Does this sound ridiculous? It is. The burden of proof is not on the accused to prove authenticity, it is on the accuser to prove either that the evidence false, and/or that another answer (i.e. in this example, that you are actually someone else) is more likely than what the evidence proposes.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

Yes, this would be much appreciated, and would help with the "outnumbering" issue that seems to bother IDW. Usually, we either have folks that change the subject rather than answering questions or who attempt to support unlikely claims with other unlikely claims. Given that there are often many errors of evidence and logic in each of these claims, a thread tends to balloon with corrections, or requests for evidence for those claims. So limiting the number of claims, with careful consideration of evidence and logic, would lead to a much better discussion.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I'm up for that! What's claim number two, IDW?

Bummer.

It's such a rarity to find a hoax believer who is actually civil, reasonable, and willing to participate in debate while following the rules of engagement. It seems a shame to dismiss him/her.

Of course, requesting no outside participation in an open forum is an improper request by IW, but I wonder if maybe he'd be willing to compromise a bit and present his arguments anyway, knowing that board rules don't permit abusive behavior, and as such he needn't worry about a "lynch mob" style attack.

In fairness to him, I believe he has a semi-valid concern in that regard, as board rules do demand that all questions be answered in a prompt and courteous fashion. As such, he may feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume of potential queries to which he'd be required to respond (in keeping with regulations), and decide that a group endeavor simply isn't worth the effort. As long as I've been here, every HB I've seen come and go has done so with guns blazing, full of invective, and unwilling to discuss arguments rationally, so if he actually is as sincere and reasonable as his post suggests, it would be a pity to scare him away.

IW: If board members here engage you civilly and agree to rationally discuss specific topics in a linear manner until resolution is reached, would you agree to participate? If you conduct yourself in a polite and civilized manner, I doubt very much you'll feel "ganged up on", as you expressed concern for.

What say you?

__________________
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

What do you mean by in a linear manner? Do you mean, topic two, then topic three, etc.?

I did not understand that at all.

Sorry about that. It just means that if you have ten points of evidence, you want one conclusion in an inductive proof, not ten small sub-conclusions.

Induction is reasoning from specific to general. That is, the specific evidentiary points in, say, a criminal trial may add up to the general conclusion that the defendant is guilty. Or not.

I like to use the example of a traffic cop...

That's a good analogy to many conspiracy theories, but what you're describing has more to do with the burden of an affirmative rebuttal. If you present a driver's license that appears in order as satisfaction of some burden of proof (i.e., that you are permitted to drive), someone who "affirms" that it must instead be fake (i.e., and that you are really not permitted to drive) has the burden to prove that.

The reason why we have to presume authenticity is because of what can be proven. You can never prove that something is authentic; you can only prove that it hasn't yet been shown to be fake according to any detection means you know about. In order to prove in a logically rigorous way that something is authentic, you'd have to show that it not only passes the tests you know about, but that it would pass any test yet to be devised. That's impossible and open-ended. In logical terms, it's a conjunction, or the condition expressed in electronics by the AND gate. Proof of authenticity would be the logical product of passing Test 1 and Test 2 and... all the way up to Test Infinity. Can't be done, mathematically.

But you can prove with logical rigor that something is fake. In the case of the driver's license you can show that the signature doesn't match, or that the lamination is not official, or that the photograph has been replaced, or that the watermark is missing. Any one of those conditions, if discovered, proves the fake, regardless of what others may be true or of what other tests might be devised in the future. Logically it's a disjunction, or the relationship expressed electronically in the OR gate. Proof of a fake would be the failure of Test 1 or of Test 2 or of Test 3 and so on. It doesn't matter in a disjunction if the set is unbounded.

Now in practice the uncertainties of empiricism apply. In practice no one test is conclusive. But the point here is to justify placing the burden of proof, which can be studied under notion of ideal cases.

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

Essentially yes, in keeping with his original suggestion:

"My intention is to present each arguement or point individually, one at a time so a conclusion on each can be reached in the readers' mind, and perhaps in the minds of the participants."

__________________
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

OK, but it seems that that is in his control, rather than something that we have to agree to, then. If he presents a topic, I don't think the board rules would require him to answer questions that were off topic.

It seems a shame to dismiss him/her.

To be clear: I don't decline to debate Interdimensional Warrior at all; I decline to agree that only I debate him. It's not fair to everyone else who has interest, insight, and knowledge regarding Apollo, it's not what this forum is about, and it's not what science and investigation are about.

...I wonder if maybe he'd be willing to compromise a bit and present his arguments anyway, knowing that board rules don't permit abusive behavior, and as such he needn't worry about a "lynch mob" style attack.

That is exactly what I'm counterproposing.

Which of you isn't already thinking, "If I see Jay getting into trouble I'll help him out with key information in a private message?" If that's going to happen, I'd rather it happen in public.

In fairness to him, I believe he has a semi-valid concern in that regard, as board rules do demand that all questions be answered in a prompt and courteous fashion.

I sympathize with his misgivings about what must seem to him like walking into the lion's den. Personally I think the issue of outnumbering is a red herring. In nearly a decade of formal debate over the Apollo hoax theory, I have seen the deck consistently stacked naturally in favor of conspiracy theorists simply because it's very easy to make an accusation or ask a question, but often requires considerable research and discussion on our part to provide the response. I'm not saying it's payback time, nor that I.W. will necessary make those same arguments; I'm just saying that I think the concern is probably overrated in this case.

The spirit of the "prompt and courteous response rule" is to avoid evasion. Clearly any poster who is actively answering questions ought not to be held responsible for backlog under that rule. And I would argue, if a poster is being reasonably responsive, that deluging him with new questions beyond his capacity would itself violate the anti-evasion rules.

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