Me Vs Bad Astronomy guy about going to the moon part 2 is up now

[Joe Rogan]

Enjoy and discuss

http://podcast.penn.freefm.com/penn/247428.mp3

[haider254]

I think I'll listen to this on my drive to uni on monday

[lukky]

You owned him pretty hard.

About half way thru he turned into a stumble bum.

[InSummary]

Originally Posted by lukky

You owned him pretty hard.

You little poo-kisser. How was that owning him in regards to proving that we didnt land on the moon?


Metorites from Antartica, a nazi, a lemon on a hanger; these are all interesting points to mention, but all are far from proving that man didnt land on the moon.


Joe mainly accomplishes presenting possible evidence of a possible alternative to the moon landing, while disregarding all evidence which supports man landing on the moon as fake or a lie.

[Zophiel]

Does anyone doubt that we can send and land men on the moon? Scientists needed nothing more than Newton’s equations from 300 years ago to send rockets to the moon. Are humans forever confined to the Earth unable to understand how to get anywhere outside our planet? If not, then why fake it? Why not just go to the moon. Why does there have to be a hoax?

[Disasterpiece]

Originally Posted by InSummary

Joe mainly accomplishes presenting possible evidence of a possible alternative to the moon landing, while disregarding all evidence which supports man landing on the moon as fake or a lie.

I think that he presents alternate explanations for the things that are used to prove, as fact that we landed on the moon. Thing that are used as proof positive could have other explantions.

[high]

I already posted this link in the other thread, but I guess it is easier for everyone to just make a new topic with it... I'll remember that for next time

anyways I've always thought it was really strange that we have NEVER gone back to the moon. <- nasa

[Zophiel]

Originally Posted by high

anyways I've always thought it was really strange that we have NEVER gone back to the moon. <- nasa

Why? What's going on at the moon that we need to go back?

[drseuss9311]

i'll admit that i'm a skeptic and joe talks about this like I wish i could

digg it here

[InSummary]

Originally Posted by Disasterpiece

I think that he presents alternate explanations for the things that are used to prove, as fact that we landed on the moon. Thing that are used as proof positive could have other explantions.

Alternate explanations can be presented for almost anything - thats why conspiracy theories are never short in supply, no matter the topic. Creationism is an "alternate explanation" to evolution and the age of the universe. Alternate explanations dont always hold much weight.


Hell, Joe even offers alternate possibilities to his own alternate possibilities. The first thing he mentioned in regards to the moon rocks was the nazi guy collecting rocks in Antarctica, and when Phil tells him that could not be a sufficient answer, then he proposes that an unmanned mission went to the moon to collect the rocks/dust.


I could tell you that your father is not your actual biological father. You could tell me that you share physical traits with him and have a DNA test proving he is your father. I could present the alternate possibilities that your mom simply fucked a different guy who resembles your 'dad' and that the DNA test could be fake.


Like I said in the other thread, a person can deny any amount of evidence if they try hard enough.

[watmoonhoax]

Joe's argument that the Apollo missions traveled 240k miles to the moon and back, and yet we only traveled at most 400 miles into space since 1972, is not a strong argument that we never went to the moon. As Phil pointed out in part I of the debate, we never went back bc we lacked the political will to do so.

With 6 successful but hugely expensive missions to the Moon, what more is there left to do such that the benefit of doing it outweighs the enormous cost?

Joe argues "but we go up in the Space shuttle all the time, why not the moon, why not at least do a flyby"?
at least when the Space Shuttle goes up, there is a benefit that greatly mitigates the cost, such as placing satellites in orbit, servicing the Hubble telescope, delivering supplies and components to the space station, etc. at this point, the Space Shuttle is more a delivery truck than space explorer.

what Joe, we should go back to the moon just bc we haven't been there in a long time? how many times can you go to Disney World before you think, wtf....i'm here again?

[InSummary]

Originally Posted by watmoonhoax

With 6 successful but hugely expensive missions to the Moon, what more is there left to do such that the benefit of doing it outweighs the enormous cost?

As if it would matter if we did go back to the moon. Some people simply will not believe it unless they're allowed to tag along.


Just think about CGI and modern special effects, I heard NASA has Spielberg in mind for directing the next moon landing.

[cocard]

There is something wrong with the file. It plays but there's no sound.

[mattevil]

While I still believe we went to the moon (while freely admitting the government is totally capable of trying to fake it) I thought Joe did good job being entertaining in the first round. Will have to give this a listen later tonight.

[lukky]

Originally Posted by InSummary

You little poo-kisser. How was that owning him in regards to proving that we didnt land on the moon?

You dumb fuck, he doesnt have to prove that we didn't land on the moon.

He just has to cast a shadow on the landing.

[Zophiel]

Originally Posted by cocard

There is something wrong with the file. It plays but there's no sound.

http://penn.freefm.com/

go to the website. it's on the front page. it works.

[watmoonhoax]

Joe argues that if the govt is willing to employ von Braun, a Nazi, then the govt is also capable of faking the moon landing.

This is a tenuous argument at best. So he was a Nazi, and? It's the same reason the FBI will grant immunity to a particularly crafty criminal so he'll work for the FBI. Von Braun was THE best rocket scientist in his day. The US was in a space race with the Soviets in the height of the Cold War.

Is Joe trying to tell us that the US govt, in its feverish quest to beat the Soviets, would bypass employing von Braun JUST BC he was a Nazi?
as if the govt's sense of moral outrage would outweigh national security?

if the US govt had plans of faking the moon landing anyway, why risk the scorn of the general public by employing a Nazi to head your space program?

[watmoonhoax]

Joe argues that Gus Grissom hung a lemon on the LLM one wk prior to him being killed on the launchpad, therefore the US govt killed him bc he hung that lemon.

X, then Y. Therefore, X caused Y.

Joe makes the classic 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' logical fallacy concerning causality.
In essence, where X occurs (hanging a lemon), followed by another event Y (launchpad fire), he decided solely on the basis of X having come before Y, that X caused Y.

Cavemen heard birds singing every morning preceding the rising of the sun, and on that basis concluded that singing birds caused the daily sunrise. - DQ McInerny

The fact that Gus hung a lemon on the LLM before he was killed is not entirely irrelevant. It's just not conclusive.

[Disasterpiece]

Originally Posted by watmoonhoax

Joe argues that Gus Grissom hung a lemon on the LLM one wk prior to him being killed on the launchpad, therefore the US govt killed him bc he hung that lemon.

X, then Y. Therefore, X caused Y.

Joe makes the classic 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' logical fallacy concerning causality. In essence, where X occurs (hanging a lemon), followed by another event Y (launchpad fire), he decided that solely on the basis of X having come before Y, that X caused Y.

He didn't decide that. He said it was possible the two events were linked.

[Disasterpiece]

Originally Posted by InSummary

Like I said in the other thread, a person can deny any amount of evidence if they try hard enough.

That goes both ways.