ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Scott on June 23, 2016, 01:22:07 PM
-
Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip.
Apollo_11__The_TV_Transmission_Conspiracy_Theorists_Hate_.mp4
(00:52 time mark)
The corner of Collins' jacket swings back and forth the way it would in gravity.
Look at the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing in this clip.
Discovery Crew Enters International Space Station
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4
That is real zero-gravity and they behave quite differently.
The movement of Collins' jacket corner is very different from that of the straps in this clip which is in zero-G.
Our World: Exercise Equipment
(3:17 time mark)
It looks the same as the movement of this guy's jacket corners in gravity.
ISS space station treadmill running
That footage was not taken halfway to the moon. It was taken in strong earth gravity. One possible explanation is that they were trying to fake zero-gravity in a diving plane and the plane wasn't diving fast enough at that point.
-
The corner of Collins' jacket swings back and forth the way it would in gravity.
Begging the question. Do you purport to be able to predict all of the ways in which fabric might behave in or outside the influence of gravity?
-
Begging the question. Do you purport to be able to predict all of the ways in which fabric might behave in or outside the influence of gravity?
I tried it myself and I was able to duplicate the movement of Collins jacket with my own jacket. My common sense tells me that the movement would be different in zero-G or microgravity.
There's also the issue of the movement dog tags around his neck.
-
Begging the question. Do you purport to be able to predict all of the ways in which fabric might behave in or outside the influence of gravity?
I tried it myself and I was able to duplicate the movement of Collins jacket with my own jacket. My common sense tells me that the movement would be different in zero-G or microgravity.
There's also the issue of the movement dog tags around his neck.
Please provide a video supporting your claim. And that is half the battle you have to provide a video of a jacket in zero gravity that supports your claim.
-
I tried it myself and I was able to duplicate the movement of Collins jacket with my own jacket.
Begs the question that all observable movement in microgravity must necessarily differ from all observable movement in Earth gravity.
My common sense tells me that the movement would be different in zero-G or microgravity.
Your intuition is not evidence.
-
Begs the question that all observable movement in microgravity must necessarily differ from all observable movement in Earth gravity.
Let's hear your analysis of the difference in movement in the four videos I posted. Why does the movement of Collins' jacket corners look so much like the movement of the the guy on earth's jacket corners and so unlike that of the straps of the woman on the treadmill in the space station?
-
Let's hear your analysis of the difference...
Shifting the burden of proof.
Why does the movement of Collins' jacket corners look so much like the movement of the the guy on earth's jacket corners and so unlike that of the straps of the woman on the treadmill in the space station?
Because the examples were cherry-picked to convey the impression that a simplistic difference should exist. That's a straw man argument.
-
Because they are different garments, which of course behaves differently according to their OWN structure and not according to your conviction.
-
Shifting the burden of proof.
I consider it to be already proven.
Because they are different garments, which of course behaves differently according to their OWN structure and not according to your conviction.
Gravity is working on the corners of Collins' jacket but not on the straps of the space station astronaut on the treadmill. Difference in structure would not cause gravity to cease functioning.
-
I consider it to be already proven.
Then that would be begging the question. You are simply declaring that you know best when it comes to how objects should behave in the presence or absence of gravity. That is not evidence.
-
One of the biggest problems about arguing this with people like Scott is that people like him don't have the education to recognize when their arguments have been wholly debunked.
-
One of the biggest problems about arguing this with people like Scott is that people like him don't have the education to recognize when their arguments have been wholly debunked.
There are happily very few people with Scott's peculiar set of dysfunctions. In order to realize when an argument has been refuted, you have to understand the argument. FatFreddy88/DavidC/Scott simply fail at a fundamental level to grasp what it means to have a valid inference. They fail at a fundamental level to grasp what constitutes evidence or proof. And the result is a cargo-cult travesty of an argument.
-
For a fabric to flap, all it requires is some kind of correcting force. Gravity is one, but there are others.
Right now, I'm working on an oscillator that has multiple forces acting on it. It's still a simple oscillator though (even if not as simple as a simple pendulum)
-
I tried it myself and I was able to duplicate the movement of Collins jacket with my own jacket.
Begs the question that all observable movement in microgravity must necessarily differ from all observable movement in Earth gravity.
My common sense tells me that the movement would be different in zero-G or microgravity.
Your intuition is not evidence.
If Scott had said: 'I have carefully observed the effects of jacket material moving in earth gravity and compared it with video of jacket material moving in microgravity. I am confident enough in the evidence of my senses to reasonably conclude that the astronaut's jacket moved in a manner obviously similar to being in earth gravity.' Would that have been sufficient to sustain his argument (not prove), or are lay observations usually considered to be without weight (NPI)?
-
It's not that it's a lay observation, it's that the comparison has a low sample size (one jacket compared to one other jacket, once), has no comment about how closely the two test subjects match in terms of physical properties (one jacket is not the same as another), is based on an unsupported premise (that all microgravity movements must be significantly different from 1G movements), and therefore does not lead to a scientifically robust conclusion.
Lay observations are very valuable as part of a data set, but lay conclusions lack weight without robust justifications. 'It looks like it to me' doesn't serve as a valid supported conclusion.
-
Understood, and thank you. But is Scott committing the logical fallacy of Begging the Question if he provisionally relies on the evidence of his senses/common sense? A common CT argument is to 'trust your eyes', would Scott be logically wrong in doing so until greater evidence convinced him otherwise?
Perhaps put better: Would Scott be committing an error in logic by holding a belief based solely on his subjective standard of proof, barring any obvious superior counterargument?
-
I think he would, yes, becuse he has still made an assumption in order to contextualise what his senses are telling him. In this case, assuming that any similarity in movement of his jacket and Collins's must be due to their being in the same environment (1g). He has not considered any effects of materials, any kinds of movment that would be unaffected by gravity, or any movements in microgravity that might seem very similar to those in 1g at a glance. He begs the question because what he sees leads him (apparently) to a conclusion based on a premise he has not demonstrated: in this case that all movement in microgravity must look different from all movement in 1g.
-
You have to be a little careful in accusing people of begging the question (i.e., circular reasoning).
In mathematics it is perfectly legitimate and quite common to assume the truth of what you're trying to prove and then to show that this yields a contradiction, thus disproving whatever it was that you originally assumed to be true.
Of course, this doesn't work the other way -- not showing a contradiction does not prove that the assumed conclusion was true.
A few hoaxers do try to find contradictions between various bits of the Apollo record. Problem is, even if it seems real a contradiction might well be the result of a simple error or omission in the record. They never try to rule these out before they jump to their preferred conclusion.
-
It doesn't help that their hoax based explanation for so called contradictions are non-sensical post hoc contortions to get the observation to fit a predetermined theory. Crosshairs being the most glaring example.
-
Jason Thompson: I follow your reasoning and agree that Scott failed to consider that material being moved by the astronaut in microgravity may have simply resembled being in 1G, making his argument fatally flawed. What I am not clear on is if he was committing a logical fallacy (thinking incorrectly) or was just wrong (incorrect information). If the latter, a reasonable debate can be sustained till a concession is reached. If the former, well, you can always shoot spitballs at the tinfoil hat. Am I off base in distinguishing between being wrong and thinking wrong?
ka9q: I admittedly wrestle with the Begging the Question fallacy, circular reasoning is straightforward enough but I always get twisted on what constitutes an objective standard for proof.
Glom:Yeah, what is with the crosshair claim? With all the expertise in photographic analysis these yahoos claim you'd think they would notice that scanning and copying images can cause bleed-out with fine lines.
-
He was committing something by just assuming that the knowledge base he has is sufficient to make claims about anything?
-
Jason Thompson: I follow your reasoning and agree that Scott failed to consider that material being moved by the astronaut in microgravity may have simply resembled being in 1G, making his argument fatally flawed. What I am not clear on is if he was committing a logical fallacy (thinking incorrectly) or was just wrong (incorrect information). If the latter, a reasonable debate can be sustained till a concession is reached. If the former, well, you can always shoot spitballs at the tinfoil hat. Am I off base in distinguishing between being wrong and thinking wrong?
Surely the logical fallacy remains whether the person committing it is aware of it or not, and whether it is due to improper reasoning or inadequate knowledge or understanding? I agree that how far you can reason someone out of the logical fallacy depends on their own reasoning ability, but I don't think it matters how it came about in terms of simply identifying that it is there.
In this case, from experience with this particular HB, the problem is both. He is inadequately informed and inadequately willing to be informed (or at least he presents as such) about anything that contradicts his preconceived idea that Apollo was faked. So he may have committed the fallacy due to incorrect information but cannot be reasoned out of it anyway because his conclusion is not reached reasonably.
-
Gillianren: he certainly is committing something, astounding hubris at the least. My problem in more in the abstract here, Scott just reminded me of it: can lay observations be adequate to support a logical argument, or do they kind of automatically Beg the Question? Or is it a subjective whether the argument has merit, and by whose standard?
Jason Thompson: I think your assessment of Scott is spot on; his argument was perhaps not the best illustration of the issue I am trying to sort out. Let me try another favorite from the CT Hit Parade, the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7: WTC 7 was the first and only steel framed high-rise to undergo global collapse primarily due to fire. Evidence was removed from the site prior to performing a full investigation, so the NIST report is largely a model which was created to explain the observed collapse. Would a cynical CT guy be committing a logical fallacy by assuming the NIST findings were not a sound explanation , or would his lay observations be valid enough to logically debate them? In order to be logically sound, can one reject the findings of an expert in favor of evidence of the senses (then subject to debate), or is he automatically Begging the Question (thus logically unsound and essentially undebatable)?
-
One logical fallacy would be what I ran onto in YouTube. There was a certain individual that observed that Shuttle astronauts experienced "flashes" in their eyes while the lids were closed, something that the Apollo crews noted and reported. And this radiation is of course cosmic rays, one of the most energetic bit of radiation that exists. Now the problem he stated that all space radiation is as dangerous, the logical fallacy is to blanket the amount of energies of one type of radiation to all kinds of energy.
-
He was committing something by just assuming that the knowledge base he has is sufficient to make claims about anything?
On Babylon 5 they called it "delusions of adequacy". :D
-
Looked into it, I was remembering wrongly. Begging the Question is an informal fallacy, so it is logically sound but inherently unpersuasive