Apollo Discussions > The Hoax Theory

Aulis and Orion

(1/3) > >>

nickrulercreator:
Came across this aulis post as a result of a debate with a HB (still ongoing actually). The HB is saying several incorrect things (Apollo flights did not go over/under the VABs and instead went right through them; apologists only made up the non-equatorial orbital path after the deadliness of the VABs was revealed; apologists claim the Apollo flights took a polar-orbital path). He then provides this link to back up his claims but, I don't see how it relates to his claims at all. I can spot a few errors in the link almost immediately but, of course since it's Aulis, there is always something wrong with the core thesis. I'm unable to figure out what it is, anything you can see wrong?

I'm happy to post screenshots of our debate for more context if you want.

JayUtah:
Authored by Mary Bennett, who has zero qualification in any science.

nickrulercreator:
I’ve used this in the debate and the HB just says it’s an ad hominem, which isn’t entirely incorrect. It is attacking the author not the content. For the HB, though, that argument is worthless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JayUtah:

--- Quote from: nickrulercreator on May 05, 2019, 06:57:53 PM ---It is attacking the author not the content.
--- End quote ---

If an author takes it upon herself to interpret scientific findings, the basis of her understanding is not only relevant to the evidentiary value of the interpretation, it is the only thing that's relevant.  The fact that qualified scientists read the same findings and arrive at completely different interpretations than she on these matters requires an explanation.

Further, I have caught Mary Bennett in lie after lie.  She has been almost entirely unrepentant each time.  She is especially adept at lies of omission.  Far from being an ad hominem argument, it speaks clearly to her willingness to represent a subject accurately and fairly.  It takes many hours of scholarship to uncover her dishonesty, and even longer to get her to acknowledge it.  The reliability of the author is not irrelevant to these debates.  It's especially relevant when some third party is advocating the source.  It's fundamentally dishonest argumentation.  "Here's an article written by someone else on her private web site which challenges a well-established principle.  You have the obligation to take it at face value and argue only its precise content, while I get to implicitly trust the reliability of an author I haven't vetted."

nickrulercreator:
Fair point. Thanks for the input.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page