** WE WENT WHERE??? ** :eek:
Cartooniverse, * just * recently back from a trip to the Sea of Tranquility.
I am SO with Drop on this. Bick, don’t let the growling frighten you off, I think you’re a genius. Seriously. 
Hey, people, lighten up. It’s only a conspiracy theorist. There are more of us out there than you realize… 
Jesus wept! Presenting something as a possibility IS ENDORSING IT, even if only mildly so. If you’re saying “this is possible,” you are endorsing the legitimacy of the idea, saying that it is a valid point of view to support the truth of the idea. You’re endorsing a ridiculous idea.
If you don’t want to endorse an idea, then don’t spend a lot of time arguing its validity. That’s an endorsement.
The purpose of this board is to stamp out ignorance. You are very obviously making no effort to do that, instead engaging in a sort of bizarre auto-gainsay exchange where all the factual information is going towards you and none is coming out. You’re not exerting ANY significant amount of effort to learn about the subject or take seriously the efforts of those trying to explain the facts.
You have presented a rather amazing assertion for which you have not introduced, that I can recall, a single peice of objective evidence. Your subjective opinion of a photograph everyone else seems to think looks just fine is NOT objective evidence. Objective evidence would be eyewitness accounts of a hoax being perpetrated, or objective evidence that the Apollo spacecraft were spotted in orbit at a time when they should have been on the Moon, or scientific proof of the LEM being incapable of landing on the Moon, or a real geologist saying “These goddamned rocks are from Montana, not the moon,” with a link to the geologist’s findings.
WE have tried, and tried, and tried, to present objective evidence to you. Sometimes other posters, and me too, did a poor job of explaining it, or even contradicted one another. That does NOT support your case AT ALL, not one iota, just as you and I disagreeing on First World War facts would not support the case that the First World War never occurred.
What objective, verifiable evidence supporting a moon hoax have you provided? Nothing. Can you provide it?
Cervaise: Thank you for your detailed explanation. That and all of the other incredibly useful details that have been posted on the main thread tonight will be taken into my consideration. The kind of information that has been brought out in the past 24 hours has been the kind of stuff I wanted to know from the beginning–for whatever reason, it took pissing a whole lot of people off to get to data I could really sink my teeth into.
Not that there weren’t some very good points made previously, of course. I would still argue that as this discussion has progressed, it has become decidedly more focused, especially today. And I love that; again, I’m sorry if it took getting people mad in order for me to get to the good stuff. Most everybody who posts something I would be interested in now disclaims it with “I’m sure Bick won’t care,” but I do. I’m thankful to everyone who believes I am not a troll, and I should hope that the proposed option #2 (I’m an idiot) would only apply to the issue at hand.
Your statement that in previous posts I’ve never been the “somebody else who comes along with facts” isn’t entirely true, but I’ll accept the generalization. I don’t see how it is relevant to the issue at hand; it reveals me to be neither an idiot nor a troll, as far as I can tell. Except for my past weekend’s work on the Moon Hoax thread, I post from work, and I generally can’t do a lot of Cecil-like research there, so I try to get a post in when I feel I can at least give somebody something to think about.
In no way should this be interpreted as
“…context for your sheer, blind stubbornness in the Apollo thread, as it gives insight into your thinking process, if I can call it that.”
And sure, the salmon recipes and cutest-SDMB-poster threads were in MPSIMS, but remember: I didn’t start the thread. I didn’t put it in Great Debates. I watched the Fox special and jumped immediately on the SDMB because I felt in my heart of hearts it would be the one place I could get (drumroll) the Straight Dope. I found the thread near the top of the new posts, so I started posting on it. That’s that. As for meeting the “much, much higher standard” of GD, I’d still maintain that I DID do a much better job than your run-of-the-mill conspiracy monger.
My defense of the HAL speculation is legitimate precisely BECAUSE nobody knows what Kubrick was thinking. Clarke may have written the sequel to the novel, but he sure didn’t write the sequel to the movie. God knows if you’ve read the awful third book you’d agree that Clarke doesn’t really know where to go with the luggage Kubrick left him. But that is a topic for a thread of its own, I suspect. I don’t think my opinion on this is asinine, but arrogant I might buy…
I don’t see the bald-faced confession of ignorance in my notion that neither Christians nor hard-core atheists tend to be the most level-headed individuals. Sure, I’ve fucked with a chat-room fundie in my time, but I have never carried that behavior over to the SDMB.
quote:
I’m sure this particular topic has been ground into a fine meal on the SDMB many a time.
I meant the “are hard-core atheists as silly as hard-core Fundamentalists” topic.
As for your story about the FDR/Pearl Harbor conspiracy, I’d say you hit the nail on the head. I’ve gotten all sorts of great links/quotations today and I promise you I will review them all before continuing my arguments against anyone.
I’d just like you to imagine, though, what would have been like to have just found out about the FDR/Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory and gone to the SDMB for reassurance of the “truth”—only to find yourself to be the only person posting in favor of your argument in a GD thread called “Charity drive to feed the empty heads of the FDR/Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists.” Don’t you think you’d feel like just a little bit more than the facts were stacked against you?
I don’t know at what point my “commendable” intellectual curiosity turned ugly to you, and I’m sorry for it. I am definitely not 100% convinced the Apollo missions were falsified—what distinguishes me from you, in fact, is that I am NOT 100% convinced the Apollo missions were real.
You say I nitpicked irrelevant details; I got emarkp to take his calculus figures down from one-half reflectivity to one-third reflectivity—not bad for an ignoramus, eh?
I won’t even touch on your ridiculous elephant analogy. The day we do a Dopefest on the moon I’ll buy that one.
But I thank you for at least considering that I am not a troll, and I swear I will get around to looking at yours and everyone else’s explanations. I really do want to know the truth. Hey, you never know, someday somebody might ask ME how we can prove we went to the moon…
Duck Duck Goose: If that’s sarcasm, it’s got the finest point I’ve ever seen. Thank you… I think…
RickJay: “Sometimes other posters, and me too, did a poor job of explaining it, or even contradicted one another. That does NOT support your case AT ALL…”
That’s the whole problem right there. On one hand, I came to the thread expecting people who would point me in the right direction, but the necessary process of clarifying fuzzy or conflicting stories (and then, once sorting them out, seeing whether they actually DO disprove the conspiracy theory) took quite a bit of time. The original thread may be 4 pages long, but I’m willing to bet I wrote 2 of those pages myself. It’s not as though I haven’t contributed anything to this discussion, as you would suggest, though I’ll be the first to admit I don’t have hard facts to disprove the conspiracy theory. As I recall, that wasn’t a stipulation of the OP.
You gotta believe me, folks, I’m neither an idiot nor an asshole. I will review the wealth of new evidence presented to me before continuing my counter-accusations, if I find any.
Since I already hijacked Satan’s Pit thread, let me go ahead and put my opinion in the thread to which it belongs.
BickByro is not being a troll. He is not being a JDT, either. All in the world he is trying to do is play devil’s advocate, and he is doing a good job of it. He’s right, it certainly is an interesting exercise to try to drag out exactly why we believe what we do.
Bicky…
And you have a poor concept of Geology, too.
But I’ll tell you what… find one place on Earth where you can find a chunk of rock that developed in the absence of water or air. I think you’ll be surprised at how difficult that task will be.
When?
inor…
No, I get a take on the facts and start socking for THAT. Just because most other people also seem to have more than a pair of brain cells to rub together is just a serendipitous occurance (since when did “majority opinion = bad”?).
Ogre…
Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha.
Sweet Zombie Jesus. . . .
Do you have any idea, any idea at all, how rocks are formed? Did you take any science courses while busily flunking out of Junior High?
Here’s a hint - There is no naturally occuring vacuum chamber anywhere on earth.
Tool.
Since they killed the witches at Salem and all over Europe before that
Since they made Socrates drink hemlock
Since they ahh, shit what’s that one guy’s name- the one with the gravity experiment who also asserted the world was round and revolved around the sun? Yeah, him- since they persecuted and killed him.
Since they smeared the Wright bros. and ‘mathematically proved’ that human flight was impossible
Since there were enough of a majority who thought it acceptable, so there was slavery
Since (changing now) they thought an alchoholic, drug addict, and many other people with real problems were just moral vacuum tubes who jsut didn’t care enough to change
I can go on and on. Point is, since when does Majority automatically =good? Sometimes it does, sometimes, often, IMO, it doesn’t. And if I never see someone do other than take the majority side, I begin to wonder about their ability to think for themselves.
Ain’t saying you’re this way- I said it seemed and I wonder.
Not sarcasm.
Bolding mine. Notice how the current meaning, “person with a high IQ”, is dead last on the list.
And, what Ogre said. 
Um, that never happened, you know. Galileo was placed under house arrest, mostly for being a politically naive fuckup who insisted on writing dialogues where the Pope was portrayed as a moron, but he certainly was not executed.
Looks like the job of stamping out ignorance is a never-ending one.
PL
Maybe you’re right, but it seems like the guy I’m thinking of is someone different, name starts with an A or something-
Still, if you’re right, then yup, I bow to your last comment and can only reply that I have the same sentiments and aspirations…
Come on, pldennison. You nitpicked one of his points. He has a perfectly valid point, in spite of the fact that he misspoke. Majority opinion does not always equal “right.”
In this particular case, I believe BickByro is performing a very valuable service. He is making every one of us think.
and while at first I thought it was rather snippy, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in my reply to it.
But I’ve looked at it again to read Ogre’s post, and fuck that- I see no need to try to be gracious to you.
You seem to be on the Pope’s side, and against Galileo. Ok, so we have on the one hand, a gentleman who exerts whatever self-serving control over the masses that he can by the use of a belief system that has never been shown to have validity over any other similar belief system. And propogates the acceptance of many (what have come to be viewed as) superstitions and other forms of ignorance or political expediency. Off the top of my head, here’s a good place to spend some entertaining moments reading up on the brilliance and scientific objectivity of those old popes…
OTOH, you have some very nasty and condescending things to say about Galileo, who, whatever his faults (and we all have them, but in this particular case, might not Galileo have been so pissed at the pope for being ignorant that his temper got the better of him, an ill-advised and emotionally executed attempt at stamping out ignorance on his part?) was a man who questioned current beliefs, and sought knowledge, which is the best way to stamp out ignorance.
And Ogre’s right- so you nitpicked one (possibly- I still am not certain it’s Galileo I’m thinking of) of my statements, while totally ignoring my point, and having nothing to say about the statements that you did not see fit to nitpick.
Then you have the bald faced dipshittedness to insinuate that you are somehow (and how weary a chore it is to your superior self, oh my) fighting ignorance, and that I represent that ignorance in this case.
This is popery pl, and I think you need a nap.
What are you, fucking NUTS?? I’m a frequently identified fucking ATHEIST, you moron. I have NEVER failed on this board to defend science against religion. For several months, my .sig line was, “Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted by an unjust authority. You must also be right.” Against Galileo? Fuck you. I’m the president of his goddamned fan club, pal.
My point, you numb-skulled little fuckstick, was that The Story Of Galileo is INFINITELY more complicated than most people believe, and involved far more than just heliocentrism vs. geocentrism. Galileo WAS politically naive, and when he wrote his “Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems,”, which DID use the Pope’s position to represent an idiotic character (he even named him “Simplicio”), he burned many of his allies in the Church. He was placed under house arrest, and he was not executed. Those are FACTS, jackoff. If you want to stamp out ignorance, you would be bloody well advised to STICK to them.
Here’s another clue–if you’re thinking of anyone, it’s Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake as a heretic for advoating heliocentrism. If you want to stamp out ignorance, it would serve you well not to conflate easily distinguishable historical figures and events.
Furthermore, despite his exile, Galileo never turned his back on the Church. One of his first projects following his exile was to help the local church cast a new bell. He also continued correspondence with his daughter, who was a nun.
Which happen to be absolutely true. Galileo was a brilliant scientist. He fought for empiricism and experimentation at a time when those things were all but unknown in the scientific community. He made deductions based on observations that were absolutely brilliants. He took the science of astronomy on a leap forward. But he also didn’t understand the politics of the time, and ran afoul of them when he insisted on ignoring the advice of his friends in the Church hierarchy and the government.
I can’t believe anyone who has ever read a single one of my posts would say something as idiotic as what you just said. I also can’t believe anyone who appears to be as unacquainted as you are with the history of Galileo would shoot his mouth off about it.
I’m not going to do your research for you, kiddo. Read a fucking book.
I can guaran-fucking-tee it isn’t Galileo you’re thinking of. Galileo was sentenced and exiled in 1633, and died in 1642 at his home. You’re thinking of Bruno.
Oh, so now we need the permission of the poster as to which particular bits of ignorance get to be stamped out? If someone came away from your post thinking that Galileo had been executed by the Catholic Church, wouldn’t that make them, well, ignorant?
Well, you did. You thought Galileo (you know, the guy who did the gravity experiment :rolleyes: – you didn’t even know his fucking NAME) was executed by the church. You were wrong. Ignorant. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Heavens to fucking Murgatroyd. You’d think people might want to, you know, LEARN something from time to time. Nah–that’d be terrible.
Oh, and two more things:
–Before I get called on my own statements about Bruno, his adherence to heliocentrism was really a drop in the bucket and a gross oversimplification of his trial before the Church. He also said that Jesus was not God and that Satan could and would be saved, both theological heresies.
–To show just how much ignorance needs to be stamped out, especially in inor’s case, “the one with the gravity experiment who also asserted the world was round . . .” did no such thing. Both he, the Pope, the Church, and most other people in the world already knew the Earth was round. It had been proven since before the time of Christ.
Some of your other points (like the witches and Socrates) also contain some bullshit, but hey, it’s OK to make a broader point even if it’s supported by false facts. In fact, it makes your argument stronger!
pldennison,
Stop being cranky. You can’t convince me that you did not understand exactly what inor was talking about. Yes, he fucked up about Galileo and Bruno. Yes, you corrected him, if a bit harshly. Hurrah.
Now, what does that have to do with his point? Majority does not always equal “right.” There are minor flaws in his arguments and his examples, but his thesis stands, in my opinion, as self-evident truth.
I would suspect you would agree if we were talking about the popular opinion on carnivorism.
Now make nice, guys.
getting back to the topic of what a fucking idiot I am…
SPOOFE: It may be difficult for you to believe, but our fair planet has not always had the benefit of oceans and an atmosphere. If I could find any 4-billion year old rock on earth (and appearently I can find some in the NW Territories), I would be able to show you a rock that had “developed in the absence of water or air.”
because here’s the point which you will blithely ignore
I make the point that just because a majority says so, it ain’t necessarily so. I used some flawed arguments, but several good ones. The inferred point I’m making is that it’s best to think for yourself instead of taking somebodies word for something just because they’re in the ‘majority’.
Pretty good way to fight ignorance, in my opinion. Not the least because many people, if they are arguing an ignorant viewpoint, seem to be bullet-proof against attempts to change their mind- see just about any of the nastier pit threads, if you care to see this for yourself- see many minds changed? Oh, some, but mostly not. So, you have to have an open mind, and not be so accepting of dogma, whatever it’s form. Sometimes the majority is right, sometimes wrong.
You jump on my shit about facts about Galileo and Bruno.
K, I’m wrong there.
Think for yourself, don’t necessarily assume the majority is right.
or
You little fuckstick, this and that about Galileo, and you didn’t even know his name and you haven’t bothered to read my other posts and read a fucking book and you’re fucking wrong about Galileo, here’s the fucking scoop, you ignoramous…
K, now.
Which one, in your opinion, goes farther towards fighting ignorance?
fuckstick? you goddam betcha I’m a fuckstick- the one right up your tight little ass, jack-hammering away, little drummed boy. All you had to do was not be so fucking snotty in the presentation of your aside-quality post.
xxxooo### (you do know that’s the pound sign, don’t you denny?)
OK, inor, one more free ride aboard the clue train, then I have to start charging you.
To begin with, I originally neither agreed or disagreed with your broader point (which, by the way, I do agree with). I saw a factual error in your post, and I called you on it, although it was tangential. That happens here at the SD; it happens to me all the time. And I don’t think it was particularly snotty, either–nor did you until you read Ogre’s post. The point is that it does one no good to attempt to make an argument based on fallacious assumptions or bad facts, if for no other reason than someone is going to say, “If you can’t get the little stuff right, why should I agree with your larger point?”
Then you have to come back with, “You seem to be for the Pope and against Galileo,” which is based on about 10,000 leaps of logic, all of which are bullshit. I’m not going to apologize for the fact that I knew the SD about Galileo and you didn’t–that’s YOUR fault, not mine. Had you simply inquired as to whether I knew who you might be confusing Galileo with, I’d have gladly told you, but don’t come back busting my chops with a bunch of crap about who I’m “for” and “against.”
BickByro:
And do you suppose this hypothetical rock of yours has been in a vacuum chamber for the last 4 billion years? Because the rocks on the moon sure have.