|
Author
|
Topic: 4/4: BIS - Moon landings Fact or Fiction? (UK)
|
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 01-08-2012 09:27 AM
   
Can I draw the attention of UK members to this? We note the inclusion of this event in the BIS 2012 programme with great regret. We have been members of the Society for some time, averaging forty years each with most of them at the Fellowship level. We are giving serious consideration to whether we should continue...By all means discuss in a professional manner whether NASA's contemporary reporting of events was as good as it could have been but, please, do not confuse that with giving hoax and conspiracy theorists a platform. To do so is a step on the slippery road to the BIS turning from a respected body that deals with Science Fact to a Science Fantasy club. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42986
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-08-2012 09:33 AM
The event to which Robert Christy, Sven Grahn and Jonathan McDowell object in their linked letter above (and in my opinion, rightfully so) is/was scheduled for April 4, 2012 with speaker Marcus Allen: NASA is the only source for all the evidence of man's landing on the Moon. Much of it is so questionable I contend that it could not have happened the way we have been led to believe it did: At worst the whole Apollo mission could have been fabricated, at best we have been seriously misled as to man’s ability to survive more than a few hundred miles above earth’s surface. Could this be the reason there are now no plans to return any astronauts to the Moon? The British Interplanetary Society has since removed the page for this lecture from their website, but here is Google's cached version. |
spaceman
Member Posts: 1104
From: Walsall, West Midlands, UK
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 01-08-2012 10:26 AM
The event was featured in the lecture programme at the back of Spaceflight magazine last month. From the accompanying description it did leave this space enthusiast wondering why it was going to be given time and now publicity. BIS members and fellows should write in individually expressing their concerns. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 01-08-2012 10:33 AM
This is a matter for BIS members.I think where the BIS has possisbly messed up is in showing too much equanimity in its presentation of this subject matter. This could have been a great opportunity to ridicule the conspiracy theories. Rather than providing a "platform" for the hoax-theory, the knowledge of some of the membership could have been deployed to rebut the theories once and for all. I hope the BIS will explain or justify its rationale, rather than simply succumbing to the demands of a few to stifle open debate. The strength of any institution lies in its ability to listen to differing opinions (that may seem to many wrong, distasteful, or offensive) and to vigorously counter-debate them. |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 01-08-2012 12:32 PM
Sorry, but I'm glad I am not a BIS member. I think they are losing their way? |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 01-08-2012 01:50 PM
The ones losing their ways are the ones criticising without having read the material in the first place (in reference to the other Spaceflight thread).If you want to debunk Moon hoaxers you need to detail their arguments and then explain why they're false. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42986
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-08-2012 02:23 PM
This isn't an article to read; it's an event and it's BIS giving a known hoax proponent a dedicated platform without even a counterpoint speaker to balance the presentation.Consider it this way: would BIS host a lecture by someone claiming Osama bin Laden personally caused the loss of space shuttle Columbia because there was an Israeli astronaut aboard? There is a significant and important difference between entertaining dissenting points of view and assisting in the spread of misinformation. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 01-09-2012 04:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
... assisting in the spread of misinformation.
That's one Hell of an implied accusation and where did the Osama allegory come from? I realise that suppression of free speech is the current political norm (in order to "protect" the unthinking proletariat), but bear in mind that these BIS events typically attract 40 or so mostly BIS members, who are not going to be easily swayed by some fruitcake with ludicrous views. |
garymilgrom
Member Posts: 1966
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 01-09-2012 05:56 AM
Why is the BIS giving its esteemed meeting time to "some fruitcake with ludicrous views"? (your words) I don't think that is it's mission.Robert is correct in accusing them (or at least this event) of helping to spread misinformation. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42986
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-09-2012 07:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
That's one Hell of an implied accusation and where did the Osama allegory come from?
I made up the bin Laden story as an example of a conspiracy so outlandish that a reputable organization like the British Interplanetary Society would never think to associate itself with. The moon landing hoax is an equally outlandish fabrication that has been dulled by pop culture. Whether it is to 40 people or 400, there is no justification for an organization that is devoted to academic endeavors to promote a certifiably false set of claims. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 01-09-2012 10:03 AM
40 individuals (presumably from the One Truth Only organization) will dress in look-a-like (huh?) BIS members, tie up the lecturer and throw him in the Thames.  |
Spacefest
Member Posts: 1168
From: Tucson, AZ
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 01-09-2012 12:01 PM
Yuck! |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 01-09-2012 12:19 PM
Didn't they garner any opinions from members before they planned this? I hope not, otherwise it would be even worse. |
Steve Procter
Member Posts: 1031
From: Leeds, Yorkshire, UK
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 01-09-2012 12:40 PM
Isn't there also the possibility that the speaker will pack out the 'crowd' with a few of his 'supporters' (sadly I suppose he has some...) |
Paul23
Member Posts: 836
From: South East, UK
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 01-09-2012 02:44 PM
Thankfully though most of them are safely under lock and key in nice warm padded rooms! |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 01-09-2012 02:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
I realise that suppression of free speech is the current political norm...
I don't see where not having this lecture is suppression of free speech. The "fruitcake with ludicrous views" is free to give his talk wherever he chooses. The speech police will not come and shut him down if he is giving a public lecture. He can shout his theories in Hyde Park and he will not be hauled away(I assume they still have the speakers corner there). The issue here is an organization such as BIS giving a forum to views that are ridiculous, and not even having a counter speaker to debunk the myths proposed. Having him tends to lend credence to his views. |
astroartuk
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 01-10-2012 09:00 AM
Yes, I must say that I find it unfortunate, to say the least, that the BIS appears to be giving credence to the 'Moon Hoax' people. As Patrick Moore has always said, best to ignore these idiots! I have a page on my website which refutes, in some detail, some of the supposed 'evidence' against the reality of the Moon landings. |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 01-10-2012 09:11 AM
I have received an off-line e-mail questioning my reasoning. Well here it is for everyone to see. The BIS relies on its members and magazine sales for funding, those members and folks who buy at the newstand have an interest in spaceflight. Why perhaps "score an own goal" and promote an event which surely goes against its principles as a learned society promoting the exploration of space and astronautics?There are plenty of other platforms for people with different views to espouse them from. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3120
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 01-10-2012 08:07 PM
What we seem to have here is an example of the modern fallacy that there are two sides to every argument. There aren't. There is no middle ground between truth and falsehood. There is no moral requirement to give a "fair hearing" to demonstrable nonsense. Apollo astronauts landed on the Moon. Fact. There is no duty to hear the "other side of the argument" because there isn't one. |
David Bryant
Member Posts: 986
From: Norfolk UK
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 01-11-2012 12:53 AM
Were anyone to prove conclusively that the moon landings were faked, I'd be out of business: as would this site!However: this is how Hegel would define the concept of bipolar opinion: - You first have a thesis
- Next an opposing idea goes against the original idea: this is called the antithesis
- Finally these are combined into the synthesis.
- The synthesis become the thesis of another antithesis and this process continues.
Hegel would say that what is right is the synthesis of the two opposing forces until it is opposed and synthesizes by another antithesis.In other words there is no RIGHT for the whole time but what is RIGHT is the synthesis of the current time. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 01-11-2012 01:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
What we seem to have here is an example of the modern fallacy that there are two sides to every argument.
I'm hoping that the above applies only to the moon landings and nothing else (okay, I can name a few other topics) because otherwise it's really scary. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 01-11-2012 03:00 AM
From the outset let me make one thing clear - I believe men landed and walked on the Moon.Notice that I used the word 'believe'. Only twelve men know for a 'fact' that they got lunar dust on their boots. The rest of us have to have the faith that the evidence of our senses is sufficient to give us the 'belief' that the Moon landings are 'fact' and actually happened. Unfortunately, in this world there are the 'Thomases' who lack the faith to believe. One should not deny them the right to express their doubts but seek to convert them to our belief. Was the BIS the right organisation to give a 'hoaxer' a platform? I think that this was an error of judgement on their part. However, it is important to heed the thin line between freedom of speech and censorship. Let us not become witch-hunters seeking to destroy the heretics. Much better to be missionaries. Having said this, perhaps one should heed the words of Sherlock Holmes. "When one has eliminated the impossible, what is left, however improbable, must be the truth." |
garymilgrom
Member Posts: 1966
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 01-11-2012 07:06 AM
There's no witch hunt here. And this isn't about free speech or censorship.Let's say I make the claim "I don't believe the website collectSPACE exists". Do the free speechers really think Robert should start a thread allowing us to debate this assertion? That would be stupid and nonsensical. So is the BIS offering a platform for moon hoaxers. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 01-11-2012 08:57 AM
quote:
Originally posted by garymilgrom:
Let's say I make the claim "I don't believe the website collectSPACE exists." Do the free speechers really think Robert should start a thread allowing us to debate this assertion?
This is both illogical and confusing the issue. Obviously you believe cS exists because both you and I use it.I haven't been in space nor have I been to the Moon. But I believe the evidence that others have. One cannot deny you the right to have strong views on this matter, but equally one has to be very careful about denying those who have opposing views a forum to express them. It's a matter of deciding what is the right forum. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42986
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-11-2012 09:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
But I believe the evidence that others have.
To adapt something playwright Baba Brinkman once said, no one believes in the moon landings. You either understand the evidence (science, physics, history, politics, imagery) for the moon landings or you don't. There's nothing to believe. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 01-11-2012 09:40 AM
As I stated earlier, this is not a free speech or censorship matter. The moon hoaxers can state their views publicly in any number of venues. They can rent halls and espouse their views to the public. They sell books and CD's on the internet, they have the right to organize forums and discussions. I doubt anyone here would try to deny them this right. Ridicule and debunk their beliefs yes, but not to take away their right to believe and speak as they wish.The discussion should be about BIS offering them a forum to spread their stupidity. The BIS is an organization dedicated to supporting and promoting the exploration of space and astronautics. It is an independent organization funded privately and as such is not obligated in any way to give the hoaxers any time to discuss their "theories". Indeed to allow them a forum at BIS lends credence to their theories. In perception people might think if an esteemed learned organization dedicated to the advancement of space exploration like BIS sponsors a lecture where these theories are espoused, then there really might be something to the theories. |
robert_l
Member Posts: 168
From: Dundee,Scotland
Registered: Jul 2008
|
posted 01-11-2012 10:01 AM
I find it utterly incredible that the BIS would put on such an event. Although not a member I do have a complete set of Spaceflight from the Apollo era with excellent coverage of the Apollo missions. The BIS organised trips to KSC to watch the launches. I would have loved to have went on one of these trips. Len Carter and Arthur Clarke would be shocked to see the BIS reducing itself to this nonsense. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 01-11-2012 10:12 AM
Robert - let's not argue about words nor try to score points off each other. To 'understand' is to 'believe' for the latter comes from the former. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42986
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-11-2012 10:19 AM
My point was not about semantics (or trying to one up you) but rather point out a common fallacy. People don't believe in facts. They either know or don't know facts. The moon hoaxers would have you believe that the moon landings are not fact, which is false. |
spaceman
Member Posts: 1104
From: Walsall, West Midlands, UK
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 01-11-2012 12:36 PM
This current debate (i.e. to consider something, to deliberate. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points) is becoming heated on here mainly because the 'lecture' at the BIS is not a debate it is being 'presented' as facts.It is not an attack on free speech to disapprove of the event because as pointed out earlier it could take place anywhere else in this country (we must be the most tolerant country in the world in this respect) quite freely but should the BIS headquarters be the venue. |
Gilbert
Member Posts: 1328
From: Carrollton, GA USA
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 01-12-2012 12:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
What we seem to have here is an example of the modern fallacy that there are two sides to every argument.
I agree with you and some others 100%. There are MANY cases where there are NOT two sides to an argument. And I agree there is no middle ground between truth and falsehood. And I agree 100% that there is no duty to hear the "other side of the argument" because there isn't one. It distresses me deeply that the BIS, an organization I have always respected, would allow this event to happen. Arthur C. Clarke would be appalled. |
cycleroadie
Member Posts: 452
From: Apalachin, NY USA
Registered: May 2011
|
posted 01-12-2012 04:24 PM
Just fly Buzz over to punch him in the face.  |
p51
Member Posts: 1642
From: Olympia, WA
Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted 01-12-2012 08:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
What we seem to have here is an example of the modern fallacy that there are two sides to every argument. There aren't. There is no middle ground between truth and falsehood.
Normally I would cringe at a post like this if it were mentioning almost any other subject. I've read posts like this for things that actually can be debated (such as interpretations of historic events, mysteries with no proven answers or other subjects that can't be empirically proven). But on THIS subject, I'm just fine with the above post. I can't imagine the Auschwitz Museum or the Holocaust Museum in Washington having a panel discussion event with holocaust deniers getting to have their say uninterrupted. There are plenty of historical events where the 'truth' might not be all that clear, or people still doubt certain motives or question individual involvement. But the moon landings isn't one of these. It's like saying that the battle of Gettysburg didn't happen because there are no photographs of the battle as it actually occurred. Almost half a million people had some hand in the Apollo program, most of them are now at (or past) retirement age or have passed on. And among all the people who worked on it, not one person who worked closely with the landings has had a deathbed confession or 'tell all' book. To deny this fact shows an utter detachment from any logic or critical thinking. Any serious event about the space program that would consider allowing such lunacy (pun intended) is one I would never dream of attending. |
GoesTo11
Member Posts: 1309
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 01-12-2012 10:41 PM
Excellent post, p51.There is a profound difference between promoting healthy, learned discussion and debate regarding historical events, and giving the implied credibility of a platform to outright deniers of well-documented facts. Robert's analogies in this instance are quite apt. Unfortunately, given the scholarly Western world's relationship with our history as of 2012, I can't say that I find any of this truly surprising... but that's not a cS-appropriate discussion. |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 01-13-2012 03:38 AM
Perhaps the event should have been billed as April 1st! |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 01-13-2012 08:15 AM
I'm not sure where this thread is really going. It's not going to influence the BIS and members clearly have differing views/convictions/dictates about what is right or wrong. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 01-13-2012 08:52 AM
A scientific organization need not give a forum to an individual or group that does not meet certain basic scientific criteria. Doing so would, in fact, bring into question the ability of the organization to discern between valid scientific topics and the realm of fantasy. If one relaxes their criteria to let the moon hoaxers speak, then one enters the same territory of holding forums with the Flat Earth Society, alchemists, and astrologers. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 01-14-2012 07:25 AM
I agree, it "need not", but it can. This could be the opportunity to debunk the ridiculous conspiracy theory once and for all. The "organisation" is less formal than, say, the Royal Society, and its strength lies not only in the officers of the Society but in the space enthusiasts who comprise the membership. I'd be very surprised if any one of them couldn't counteract the conspiracists - and it's demeaning to assume that they (and the BIS as a body) are likely to be taken in by this nonsense.I suggest the BIS run with the talk but reschedule for April 1st. |
robert_l
Member Posts: 168
From: Dundee,Scotland
Registered: Jul 2008
|
posted 01-14-2012 07:48 AM
I still find it hard to believe that the BIS could lower itself with providing a platform for this nonsense, which is an insult to all the astronauts and space workers and scientists who served in the Apollo program.If they have to waste time with nonsense why can't they get someone to debunk this garbage. I cant see many BIS members attending this event. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 01-14-2012 10:56 AM
Didn't Robert report that the page had been removed from the BIS site? Does this mean that the lecture has been cancelled? |
advertisement