PDA

View Full Version : castle moonbat


shedhead
14th Oct 2008, 17:23
Over the past few days we have been treated to several threads emanating from castle moonbat (hope you don't mind me stealing that chuks?) I have started to feel all nostalgic for the days of Erich Von Daniken and T.Lobsang Rampa. nutty they may have been but at least they were fairly harmless.It makes me wonder though, Is modern life so tedious, dull and boring that these people need to invent all these sinister cabals? the cover ups and conspiracies? or do they truly believe that they, and only they, understand the real truth? Maybe the media is to blame, the massed output of hollywood and the TV companies convincing a bunch of sad inadequates that "the truth is out there" what do you think? maybe its just post millenial tension? I have no idea,I only know that they make me sad and angry in equal measure,the technological age version of the old witch trials, damned if you are and dead if you are not.

Roger Sofarover
14th Oct 2008, 17:51
Shedhead

This is a hamsterwheel.

or do they truly believe that they, and only they, understand the real truth?[/B] Maybe the media is to blame, the massed output of hollywood and the TV companies convincing a bunch of sad inadequates that "the truth is out there]

?? i guess that depends which they, they think they are! The TV spouts out just as much convincing evidence on both sides of a story.


the technological age version of the old witch trials, damned if you are and dead if you are not.

Sad, angry, yep, i know that feeling, but with respect, it was not people voicing the alternative opinions that were baying for peoples blood. You were amongst others who were running the witch trials, and some of the comments were not really necessary. If someone believes man never set foot on the moon, or that 9/11 is not all that they are told, then let them continue to live in la la land and feel the humour of it instead of joining in with the pack mentality and calling 'he's a witch, burn him'! Go back and read through the vitriolic posts, sad? yep, definitely.

BlueDiamond
14th Oct 2008, 17:58
I read an article some time ago which offered one possible explanation for the way people ignore overwhelming evidence in favour of wild speculation. Essentially (and reduced to a few words) it was related to an unwillingness to believe that their country (and therefore themselves) was so vulnerable that an attack of such magnitude could actually be possible. They have difficulty coming to terms with the fact that a group of terrorists could, figuratively speaking, walk straight through their defences and hit them with such telling blows as those delivered to their doorstep on 9/11.

This reluctance to accept their well-demonstrated helplessness leads them to seek other, more acceptable explanations for what happened. Unfortunately, their inability to acknowledge the real facts endows them with an almost limitless ability to accept the most implausible and irrational "explanations" in preference to believing a truth which is unacceptable in their eyes.

That seems a reasonable theory to me and would certainly offer some explanation for what we see as incomprehensible behaviour.

chuks
14th Oct 2008, 18:25
You better ask Roger, Sid, James, xfiles and a few others. It is their castle, not mine! By the way, it is Castle Moonbat; let's get that right.

It's a virtual castle so that there's room there for everyone. You can either be up on the balcony with the lunatics or else down there in the courtyard shouting back but don't forget that the main thing the lunatics need is an audience, even one throwing cabbages and dead cats! (Sometimes I forget that myself.)

Now that we have the internet we get a better view of it but Castle Moonbat has always been there, home to those who feel a bit challenged by the sheer complexity of the world.

If there's a common thread in all of these things, might that be looking for answers to complicated questions using very simple, even defective logic?

How did they get to the Moon? Short and snappy: They didn't! Wow! Tell me more...

There's no need for the scientific method there at all, just a ragbag of made-up or misinterpreted stuff. What you can see is made up and what you cannot see is not there, Q.E.D.

Aviation is a wonderful opportunity to play with reality, serious play. It teaches us so many surprising things that with a bit of luck we have our minds opened even further, when this, to me, is what being alive is about. That's just me, though and I don't think it's necessarily what everyone wants or even should want.

I think there are many people out in the world who are the exact opposite, they simply want reality to be a certain way, like always opening a favourite children's book where, "And then they lived happily ever after." Life takes away that happy ending for all of us but some people really take that personally and go looking for someone to blame and a way to get that happy ending back. Happy for them, that is, like the happy ending Hitler was after, when he really did make a lot of people happy for quite a while, about five years or so! It wasn't all tears, you know.

If it takes denying the Moon landings or 9/11, inventing "chemtrails" or giant lizards living in Buck House, Jews who really run the world... the human mind is incredibly inventive when it comes to getting what it wants.

There's a line I often step over, between just ignoring some fool and letting his little flame gutter out from lack of a breeze of interest or else fanning it with a counter-argument and trying to burn it out for lack of facts. As someone here said, it can be like "wrasslin' a pig" but to me some pigs just beg to be wrassled! Yes, he's enjoying it more than me but I am still enjoying it. Too, like a lot of things, the more you do it the better you get at it, up to a point but there are no prizes won in pig-wrasslin'. Sometimes the moderators probably just save me from myself, though!

Edited to add: There you go again, Roger! No one is baying for anyone's blood! You just set up a straw man there to start whining about how it wanted to kill you.

To read about a camera that can image objects ten metres and larger and then claim that because it doesn't show objects that are smaller than that proves they are not there... What is that all about, anyway? (Please do not attempt to answer my rhetorical question.)

shedhead
14th Oct 2008, 19:27
Yes Roger I was in there throwing the rotten fruit as well and with equal gusto.
Normally I would try reason and logic but it comes back to a point I raised repeatedly, when a simple explanation is usually the correct one why do people search around and choose to believe a more complicated and less plausible answer?
Bluey may be on to something with his reply but I am not sure it applies in all cases.
Maybe G K Chesterton was right when he said that "if you stop believing in God you do not believe in nothing, you believe in anything" but as a confirmed life long atheist I find that a bit of an insult.It is a fact though that any trip around the new age style websites will dig up lots of links to conspiracy sites,alien contact sites and a whole lot of stuff involving secret societies.so is it going to be the new religion? Are otherwise normal people replacing one sort of blind faith with another more modern one?

Roger Sofarover
14th Oct 2008, 20:15
Shedhead

so is it going to be the new religion? Are otherwise normal people replacing one sort of blind faith with another more modern one?

Now thats a much more reasoned answer, thank you.

Chuks

There you go again.:ugh:

To read about a camera that can image objects ten metres and larger and then claim that because it doesn't show objects that are smaller than that proves they are not there..

actually the way the dialogue went was you claiming that the picture from said satellite showed proof of the Apollo 15 moon landing, but when someone came back saying there is nothing there in the photo, then you came back with the 'well it's only got a resolution of 10 meters, so it wouldn't show anything would it. So where is the proof in the photo they are there, simple, there is NO proof either way in the photos.

Roger Sofarover
14th Oct 2008, 20:48
It's a big hamster wheel i tell you.;)

chuks
14th Oct 2008, 20:53
Religious belief runs outside of logic systems, I think. In that sense I think that Chesterton is correct, that those who need to believe but lose belief in a Supreme Being really do often set up other things to believe in.

Money is the most obvious false god. You see people who think they are being perfectly reasonable piling up crazy amounts of the stuff while forgetting to have a life, as if they could take it with them when they go.

Up on the balcony of Castle Moonbat we have the crowd who substitute belief for observation. They set up some totem or other that they choose to believe in. Sometimes it might be something that chooses them, I think, when its bumps and hollows fit exactly with some sadly warped little excuse for a full human being. However that goes, having found something to believe in they then refuse to observe reality, full as it is of things that challenge our belief.

Did you notice Roger, for example, citing belief in some Bible story as proof of human credulity, as if there were no division between religious and profane belief? Even a scientist can hold to religious belief somehow, using such things as the Flood as an archetype rather than a verbatim account of some crazy boat trip. On the other hand he's not using that religious style of belief in the events of today where Roger and his friends do.

You see that same blind belief as you would if you tried to argue about some boat made of gopherwood big enough to hold two of everything purely as a boat! For a certain sort of Christian the Ark exists outside of fact and logic. You will get nowhere at all trying to use science to point out that you just cannot literally cram "two of everything" into one boat but that is not really a problem. What, the whales and the sharks were splashing around in its bilges, I suppose? It isn't a boat but an archetype, part of his system of belief. I have no need to get stuck into a theological debate by citing details of boat construction; that would be like expecting angels to be fitted with TCAS.

Contemporary events, though, that is a different matter! Many of us witnessed the Moon landings or 9/11 as real, objective events that unfolded in a certain way outside of our system of belief. Literally, as I watched that plane fly into the second tower, "I did not believe it!"

Events can still be crafted into archetypes and as long as that is done respecting the objective truth of the events, well... A step further, though, when people try to rework the event itself, doing violence to the truth in the service of some archetype, that for me is where the trouble starts, when someone tries to molest my truth in the name of his belief.

There you have the argument between the crowd on the balcony of Castle Moonbat and the crowd in the courtyard. They are holding to a quasi-religious belief and we are holding to objective truth, as near as we can know it. The sceptic can never win over the believer with facts but sometimes it is worth arguing the facts, even when that means "wrasslin' with a pig".

SilsoeSid
14th Oct 2008, 20:54
Next I'll be told that it was the americuns that got hold of the Enigma Machine that saved countless lives and helped us win the first world war!.

chuckie boy saw it on tv and it was in colour, so it must be true. :rolleyes:





Cover ups and conspiracies don't exist. :eek:

Well, FFS dont search news articles for various cover ups you might find out that politicians etc aren't the saints you think they are. Even I could tell you something not open to the public...but I can't. I'd have to deny it if you were to get close. That's what secrets are about. :suspect:

ABC News: Did NSA Lie, Cover-Up? Senators Open Second Probe
The Senators also raised the issue that NSA and military officials may have misled, lied or covered-up earlier, similar allegations.

http://www.politickernj.com/jcaliend...ered-taxpayers
The fact that the Republican-controlled Middletown Committee covered up contamination beneath Town Hall and the Middletown Cultural Center, respectively, is not in dispute.


In the words of another, Simple question, one word answer, Yes or No,

Do Governments 'Cover Up' certain issues or conspire against telling the public 'the truth' on certain issues.


No further posts allowed that don't begin with a Yes or No.

shedhead
14th Oct 2008, 21:24
Yes ok if you want to obscure the real point I was raising by introducing the fairly minor cover ups by some possibly corrupt politicians then fine!
I can accept that another part of this whole equation can be boiled down to the increasing cynicism that people feel for politicians and authority in general,so that over the years a lack of trust has developed which has led to us looking out of the window to check the weather when a politician says "good morning" but this whole thing has gone way beyond that,so far in fact that an entire counter culture has formed around it.
I was just wondering why?
Chuks good answer and nicely put thank you.
ps started the reply with a yes so this counts!:E

SilsoeSid
14th Oct 2008, 21:49
chukie lad,

If you are going to refer to the bible, (too weak to use a reference to the Koran, traceable i.p addresses and all that), may I suggest that you get your facts right reference Noah, the Ark and numbers of animals taken on board.

I thought you relied on facts and not made up theories, misquotes and misread information. You seem to have shot yourself in the foot old chap.

:ok:

BenThere
14th Oct 2008, 22:25
No, what Chuks wrote is profound, and rings of truth.

SilsoeSid's assertions suggest a paradigm of paranoiac delusions.

SilsoeSid
14th Oct 2008, 22:57
Lets look at it another way, maybe not all the missions that were reported to have stepped foot on the Moon, actually stepped foot on the Moon.

Why do you think Buzz gets so upset when confronted? He never clearly states that he stepped foot on the Moon, all he says is that Man has stepped foot on the Moon.

Not only has he got to face always being number 2, but also that he didn't even do it. Ever wondered why it's always Buzz in the media getting upset and not Armstrong?

Ever notice that you never see any faces in the pictures taken 'on the moon' !

Of course, the simplistic americun way of interpreting what people say, or not say, is that if you doubt one Apollo mission to the moon, you doubt them all.

Home of the brave!! Once they've run away to be back home!

Toodle Pip.

shedhead
14th Oct 2008, 23:06
I had hoped that by carefully phrasing and then rephrasing my original enquiry we would avoid the hamster wheel of petty abuse and actually manage to get some carefully thought out and well argued posts on this. A forlorn hope it seems.

chuks
14th Oct 2008, 23:16
Well, I think I will just leave you up there ranting at the Moon, all covered with American footprints as she is.

SilsoeSid
14th Oct 2008, 23:29
And just like everything else you lot have done, you went there, messed it up and then left without giving it a second thought.

Home of the brave, try staying there for a change!

Roger Sofarover
14th Oct 2008, 23:35
Shedhead

I said at the start this was a hamster wheel. It will always be difficult to argue about belief in anything. Although Benthere generously states that Chuks' post is 'profound and rings of truth', whatever that means, there is an issue with what Chuks states in the context of all of this. Chuks is proposing that those who believe in the Christian story, and those with belief in a God without evidence, can now in modern times as evidence and science dispel the likely hood of many events that were written down, pick and choose whatever they wish to believe in from the good book. When parts of the story are now shown to be scientifically 'unlikely' then they can be explained away by saying that what was said must be simply Theological.

I too sat in my school hall in 1969 and marveled as i watched the events of Apollo 11 live. As certain pieces of scientific evidence become available, i now choose to question events in that particular chapter of history. Furthermore, i do not trust anything i am told by a politician, they are so skilled they could be great conspiracy theorists if it suited their cause, as they have the ability to genuinely believe that what they are saying is true.

So until proven, scientifically otherwise, i choose to fence sit, i neither believe nor disbelieve and can argue either way.

By the way Chuk my post you refer to was not about the flood, it was about the parting of the Red Sea.

Enjoy your leave.

shedhead
15th Oct 2008, 00:01
You see Roger it can be done, no name calling or abuse just a reasoned explanation of your standpoint on the issue.it only descends into a hamster wheel if you have no reasoned explanation! I have to say though that I also thought Chuks reply had a depth to it. Maybe that is down to my atheism? certainly hit a chord with me.

Roger Sofarover
15th Oct 2008, 00:09
Shedhead

It was you throwing tomatoes and rotten fruit remember, i wasn't throwing the witches in the pond, if they drown they're innocent, if they don't they're guilty then burn them. So you are an atheist, so am i. I have no proof, or evidence presented to me through the years now shows me that what i once believed is wrong. That applies to many situations and makes me doubt the accuracy of a few things.

Conspiracy is the favourite food of all of those people who believe that they have been lied to, and have seen those they elect abuse their power. It is the devilish offspring of poor governance, and it's supporters would use it as the perfect tool to bring down those who govern as punishment for their wrongdoings.

henry crun
15th Oct 2008, 04:49
Roger, If you and Sid truly do not believe that NASA landed men on the moon you question the intergrity of the British astronomer, Sir Bernard Lovell, and his expert team at Jodrell Bank.

IIRC they stated at the time, the voices we heard were coming from the moon.
If you have a plausible explanation as to how they were deceived I would like to hear it.

chuks
15th Oct 2008, 05:40
Is all you guys get from me.

Roger, you twisted what I wrote about those Moon images, just for one example. You don't seem to be able to deal with anything but "straw men" you set up to flail the bejesus out of. You cannot give an answer that is to the point; you have to answer your own false version of what the other person posted. You come across as a weakling when you do this. Too, to complain about a hamster wheel when you are the one going in circles, well...

Sid, what's the point of this rubbish, mentioning the Koran when I mentioned the Bible, coming up with childish variations on my handle and zig-zagging back and forth between agreeing that we walked on the Moon and denying it ever happened? I don't mind you doing that but it leaves us without much to discuss, really.

Jet Blast isn't exactly a philosophy seminar at the best of times but you can have some interesting discussion here, just not with a pair of silly people whose hamsters smell of elderberries. I blow my nose in your general direction! (Thinks: Now they get down real close to check, just in case I am right and... "Owww!" Vicious little beasts, hamsters.)

Hokulea
15th Oct 2008, 09:17
From henry crun:

Roger, If you and Sid truly do not believe that NASA landed men on the moon you question the intergrity of the British astronomer, Sir Bernard Lovell, and his expert team at Jodrell Bank.

IIRC they stated at the time, the voices we heard were coming from the moon.
If you have a plausible explanation as to how they were deceived I would like to hear it.It wasn't just Lovell and Jodrell Bank, even schools around the world were tracking Apollo 11 and the only way you could receive the transmissions was to point the receivers towards the moon. There's just no way it could have been faked and fool everyone. The Soviets knew that as well, it's why they gave up.

I've been doing this stuff for years, arguing with conspiracy theorists, astrologers, psychics and other Castle Moonbat inhabitants and it's always frustrating. Now I see a tactic I've seen so many times before, this time from SilsoeSid:

Lets look at it another way, maybe not all the missions that were reported to have stepped foot on the Moon, actually stepped foot on the Moon.It's bait and switch. "OK, maybe I'll admit the landing happened, but what evidence do you have that the other landings happened?". It'll go on forever because now the conspiracy proponent will ask for every detail of every mission, not all at once mind you, and at the end of the process everyone will have forgotten where it all started, so it starts again.

Hokulea
15th Oct 2008, 09:46
This is an argument that I admit I have not seen before, probably because it's so ridiculous even the staunchest moon landing conspiracy supporters have thought it not worth the effort. From SilsoeSid:

Ever notice that you never see any faces in the pictures taken 'on the moon' !

I really am curious as to what you expected the astronauts to do. Take off their helmets and smile for the camera? You do realise that the visors were designed to reflect light, don't you?

Roger Sofarover
15th Oct 2008, 09:51
He is winding you up:rolleyes:

chuks
15th Oct 2008, 09:56
We paid HOW much for those lunar rovers? Yet they were delivered without windscreens and windscreen wipers and washers! Who did the pre-delivery inspection and who signed the delivery chit?

I guess they had to go slow driving around up there on the Moon so that moonflies wouldn't get plastered all over their visors, huh?

13thDuke
15th Oct 2008, 10:06
The following link Ten characteristics of conspiracy theorists - a look into the mond of conspiraloons, nutjobs and tin foil hatters (http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html) provides a useful explanation.

Personally, as the father of a 7 year old child, I'm quite gratified to find that so many people are too stupid to provide him with much of a challenge in his future search for jobs/women/good things.

But then he is half lizard, which will help.

Hokulea
15th Oct 2008, 10:23
He is winding you upPerhaps it is a wind-up, but who in their right mind can tell the difference between the nonsense that faked moon landing conspiracists come up with and what might be a joke from Castle Moonbat. Both are as credible as each other, it's very hard to tell the difference.

BlueDiamond
15th Oct 2008, 10:58
Thanks for that link, Duke ... very neat summation, and an accurate one too! :ok:

SilsoeSid
15th Oct 2008, 19:14
A little known fact that might upset some of our contributors here.

The boots that were worn on the Apollo misions were made in Germany, so any footprints left on the Moon are in fact... German.

Ha ha!

shedhead
15th Oct 2008, 20:56
I'm sorry but your point is?
just checked. my boots are German made too does that make my footprints German as well?

Roger Sofarover
15th Oct 2008, 21:07
Lighten up everyone or Sid will reduce your lifespan.

Ok try this one. A footprint is caused by the compression of dust (or sand etc) due to the expulsion of gas (air) or liquid particles between the dust at the point of contact. In a vacuum (with no gases, or known liquid ..as per the moon), would your step leave a footprint? Just for fun ok:ok:

henry crun
15th Oct 2008, 22:57
How's this for an offer Roger.

You answer my question first and then I will answer yours.

shedhead
15th Oct 2008, 23:01
Aah but the moon does have an atmosphere it's just not a very dense one. so as you have mass and the dust particles will be separated by a very small amount of gas the dust will still be compressed by your foot causing footprints.:ok:

chuks
15th Oct 2008, 23:10
the dust you find on the Moon. No wind or water to wear its edges down, it sticks together and makes real nice footprints just the way you can see them in the photographs. You need the special dust only found on the Moon to make footprints like those. The dust here on Earth just won't get it.

I am sure the crowd on the balcony have a perfectly reasonable explanation for how Nasa could fake this surprising and unguessed-at property of the dust found on the Moon and if we just wait a little while it will be served up for our enlightenment. I can hardly wait, myself...

Roger, you get a big "thumbs up" from anyone who has spent time in Viet Nam, yes indeedy! I never appreciated emoticons before.

shedhead
15th Oct 2008, 23:20
I knew there was something that hacked me off about the moon landings and there it is! all that dust lying there nice and comfortable not having moved for millennia and along comes a bunch of Americans and blows it about everywhere! I hope you're proud of yourselves for that! messy pups!

Roger Sofarover
16th Oct 2008, 00:06
Chucks
You are supposed to be on leave aren't you. Go relax!

Henry

You will have to give me time to work on that one:)

nahsuD
16th Oct 2008, 01:07
Ok try this one. A footprint is caused by the compression of dust (or sand etc) due to the expulsion of gas (air) or liquid particles between the dust at the point of contact.

So assume for a moment that we have no atmosphere and the boot touches sand. The weight of the boot, and its wearer, continue to sink into the sand until the sand is compressed to a point that the force exerted on it by the weight is no longer enough to push it any more. Is there a footprint?

Now think of this: There is an atmosphere, and the foot is moving toward the sand, but is rigged to a mechanism that ensures it never touches it, although it comes very, very close, only a few microns away. Is there a footprint?

chuks
16th Oct 2008, 05:59
When you visit a National Park you are expected to pick up after yourself and leave things the way you found them. When we went to the moon we left our stuff all over the place, footprints everywhere and even some golf balls just blasted off into the distance and left to lie there. Whoever visits next will think it was chavs and not astronauts! At least no one burned the abandoned cars, there is that...

Perhaps we invent the Lunar Street Sweeper and haul that along when we start our Moon Base. It should only be an extra billion dollars or so for that and it will help keep things tidy, looking nice for the photos.

This is relaxation, Roger, giving a big "thumbs up" to the crowd on the balcony of Castle Moonbat. Out to Hassi Messaoud this morning, next stop Paris. I love that Charles De Gaulle Airport, listening to that weird jingle they play and trying not to get run over by a baggage trolley while I wait and wait for my connecting flight to Germany.

Hokulea
16th Oct 2008, 09:43
Ok try this one. A footprint is caused by the compression of dust (or sand etc) due to the expulsion of gas (air) or liquid particles between the dust at the point of contact. In a vacuum (with no gases, or known liquid ..as per the moon), would your step leave a footprint? Just for fun ok

Of course it would. There's your answer, what fun, but your post is:

1) Another diversionary tactic to avoid answering questions

2) Cherry picking some physics that might help support an argument but really isn't relevant coupled with a straw man argument, and:

3) A lack of knowledge of how dust grains, charged or not, behave in a vacuum and in a low gravity environment. I don't blame you for this, not many people have that knowledge, but some do and it's obvious that you don't.

chuks
16th Oct 2008, 11:46
We must assume that Roger is some sort of savant with a brain the size of a planet. (Lunar footprints a speciality.)

Roger, now that you got your footprints sorted, would you like to tell the crowd in the courtyard, in your own words, what it means to get a "thumbs up" from chuks? What is he telling you with that gesture? That is to say, with your vast knowledge of complicated stuff on the Moon, what does this simple Earth-bound gesture mean? Is that chuks having his fun?

All you moonbats! Yes, you lot up on the balcony! Thumbs up! No, not that one, the other thumbs up!

shedhead
16th Oct 2008, 12:05
Enjoy your leave Chuks. First chavs on the moon, now that is a new slant on it!
How did they get the space helmet on over the baseball cap? maybe that's why you couldn't see their faces the peak of the cap was in the way!

chuks
16th Oct 2008, 16:36
Why do they only show the flag from one side? Burberry plaid on the other side, of course. Wicked!

nahsuD
17th Oct 2008, 11:36
Moonbats eat steak, apparently...

Space smells of steak, say Nasa (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1820985.ece)