Re: Looking for citizens' visual or radio obs of Apollo lunar missions

From: Steven Rogers (srogers1@austin.rr.com)
Date: Fri Oct 25 2002 - 12:29:49 EDT

  • Next message: Björn Gimle: "Ir 73 flare at wrong place ??"

    On Friday, October 25, 2002, at 10:00 AM, Ted Molczan wrote:
    
    > The reason is that NASA has officially decided at last to commission a 
    > detailed refutation of all the nonsense about 'Apollo Was A Hoax' on 
    > TV, in books and magazines, and on the Internet. They have asked me to 
    > write a 'monograph' which clearly and convincingly shows the flaws in 
    > the hoaxist arguments. I'm doing research over the next few months.
    
    While I would like to see that information compiled, I don't think it 
    will do any good toward refuting the "hoax" claimants. There couldn't 
    possibly be any more evidence than there is already.  The problem with 
    the "hoax" arguments is methodological - they hinge on supporting a big 
    conclusion from inconsequential bits of information while ignoring all 
    the other information that doesn't match the thesis. There is no amount 
    of new information that can refute an error in method. The only way to 
    make the hoaxers go away is to show that their *method* is incorrect.
    
    If someone claims, for example, that there's no such place as France; 
    that it is an elaborate hoax and everyone who claims to have been there 
    is "in on it" - no new piece of evidence can refute the claim on its 
    own terms. The only way to refute it is to point out that the original 
    claim is arbitrary - there is no original piece of evidence that would 
    lead one to make a claim that France (or Apollo) doesn't exist. There 
    is no vacant sound stage, no film crew, no model makers, nothing. The 
    original claim is based on whimsy, not evidence - that is why no new 
    evidence will sway the "hoax" proponents. So long as you allow the 
    original arbitrary premise to stand, no amount of logic can argue it 
    away on its own terms.
    
    The general public is baffled because the average person does not have 
    the familiarity with logic as a formal discipline to say explicitly 
    what is wrong with these arguments. They sense that *something* is 
    wrong with it. Common sense would indicate that such a large 
    undertaking involving so many people couldn't be faked, but they can't 
    name the mistake. Though it would be challenging, I hope someone 
    presents the basic idea that logic doesn't allow arbitrary premises in 
    one of these analyses intended for the general public. I think it would 
    be more informative and satisfying in the long run than further 
    evidence, and the "France" example has worked quite well with the 
    man-on-the-street people I've presented it to.
    
    Regards,
    Steve Rogers
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe'
    in the SUBJECT to SeeSat-L-request@lists.satellite.eu.org
    http://www.satellite.eu.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 13:42:30 EDT