|
Post by Ranb on Oct 9, 2005 20:02:06 GMT -4
I have been lurking here and making an occasional post for while, and it strikes me as very strange that certain hoax believers just seem to know very little about anything. It is like reading about people who do not know how the pyramids were built, so it had to be ET's. Or people who do not know how a rifle works, so the lone nut theory of the JFK assassination makes no sense to them.
How can a person say they know physics, but can not understand how a rocket works in a vacuum? Why do they think radiation levels in space are too high when they do not have the slightest idea what the actual radiation levels are? Why do they expect NASA to write a book to convince them that Apollo flights were real when NASA has already published or placed so much into the public domain about the flights?
I do believe that the doubters here are nothing but trolls. Chain yankers. I have to say that I have enjoyed lurking here, it has been an educational experience to say the least. Please keep up the good work guys.
Ranb
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 9, 2005 22:37:57 GMT -4
ranb,
I'm always very hesitant to accuse someone of being a troll. For instance, I don't think turbonium or Rusty Lander are trolls; I think they really believe what they say. margamatix's habit of reappearing periodically with new posts while completely ignoring the previous set of questions and refutations is rather troll-like, but I have so far resisted applying the "troll" label.
In any case, on this board, those of us who are actually interested in learning can do so even in the threads resulting from trolls.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Oct 11, 2005 8:14:10 GMT -4
Why do they think radiation levels in space are too high when they do not have the slightest idea what the actual radiation levels are? One possible reason is that TV shows like the Fox programme usually overemphasize and even falsify the effects of radiation between here and the moon by showing BURN victims from Hiroshima or Nagasaki. If there is just one word that can be used to describe most hoax-believers, it is "ignorant."
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 11, 2005 8:47:54 GMT -4
Unfortunately many have gone beyond ignorance and into willful ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 11, 2005 10:59:53 GMT -4
Y'see, that's the problem. Ignorance itself, while unfortunate, is inevitable; everybody's ignorant about something.
Willful ignorance - that maintained in the face of evidence and explanation, freely offered - is inexcusable. And that's the single most irritating thing about HBs and PCTs in general.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 11, 2005 12:12:46 GMT -4
And then there are those special few who are not only willfully ignorant, but determined to make others as ignorant as they, and charge them money for the privilege. These are the people for whom I have no patience whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 11, 2005 21:41:26 GMT -4
There are many issues worthy of debate, and have been discussed here. As for the JFK matter, I do have experience with various firearms, and I completely disagree with the Warren Report. There is a thread on this forum which details why I disagree with the WC. Disagreeing with the "official" account of various events does not make one a troll, or ignorant, or what have you. I do not share my views on the topics posted here to "make a buck", which I believe tends to compromise a given position on any issue. It doesn't mean one who promotes either argument is necessarily insincere in their view, only that it opens up speculation on an underlying agenda. Those who argue for a conspiracy are often criticized for being only out to make money through books, videos, etc. and called "whackos" or "paranoid". Conversely, those who argue against a conspiracy are often accused of being government "shills", or "sheep", etc. The only thing that matters at the end of the day is that, hopefully, all the truth comes out, as the events discussed here have significant effects on how our society develops going forward. I view this forum with respect, because there is a quality and substance to the debates, both pro and con. And not to be a shameless brownie point seeker , but I think Lunar Orbit does a great job of maintaining a top notch forum.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 11, 2005 21:49:36 GMT -4
And not to be a shameless brownie point seeker , but I think Lunar Orbit does a great job of maintaining a top notch forum. Thank you, Turbonium... (psst... the $10 is in the mail )
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 12, 2005 0:17:21 GMT -4
Y'er welcome, LO! ;D Disclaimer: all impiied financial rewards are posted purely for this forum's entertainment purposes, and are not to be taken any more seriously than a minimum of two nudges and two 's!!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 12, 2005 1:18:24 GMT -4
Those who argue for a conspiracy are often criticized for being only out to make money through books, videos, etc. and called "whackos" or "paranoid".
Just to clarify, I think those are two separate groups. In the case of the Apollo hoax theory, the number of people conspicuously trying to make money off of it can probably be numbered on one hand: Kaysing (RIP), Bennett & Percy, Sibrel, and Rene. Only these individuals know for sure whether they believe their own hype.
The audience for these works, I believe, constitute another group: people who do believe in the theories the works express. Insults like "whacko" or "woo-woo" aren't really productive. "Paranoid" if intended as an insult isn't productive either, but I think a lot of the followers of these theories exhibit signs of clinical paranoia. I don't mean they're mentally ill; we're probably all a little paranoid to some extent. But the driving force behind the conspiracy evangelism seems to be a never-ending battle against faceless evil. The feeling I get reading that stuff is one of abject fear of one's circumstances.
Conversely, those who argue against a conspiracy are often accused of being government "shills", or "sheep", etc.
I've only met one or two people whom I would call "shills" -- people who would defend the status quo at all costs.
And some objectors are "sheep". I don't mean that unkindly. Not everyone is really that interested in being fully informed on everything that presents itself. They believe the common beliefs on some subjects because that's what lets them concentrate on what really interests them. Not everyone wants to know why the Titanic sank, apart from "it hit an iceberg". As an engineer I'm fascinated with failure. I'm less excited about how to make cheese, for example. As long as the cheesemakers keep it coming, I'll build safe cruise ships for them.
But this means that people will hold beliefs that they really have no intention of changing simply because that's what they've already decided to believe. Those may be right or wrong beliefs. Authors like Tom Burnam have made money telling people all about the things they believe that are wrong, like how many times we misquote Shakespeare or God or Hitler, and what "headcheese" really is. It's staggering. It's also mostly irrelevant. Who cares if "cleanliness is next to Godliness" isn't from the Bible? It's a good sentiment anyway.
But possibly far more insidious are the correct beliefs we hold without knowing why. The majority of people believe that Apollo was successful (if they even know what it was), but they don't know why they believe it, other than that they were told it. So when faced with a hoax theory, some people will simply scoff and say, "Don't bother me; I already know what I want to believe." They don't have an answer for the hoax theory's allegations -- they simply decline to take it seriously. Others will happily and innocently buy into the hoax theory because they had no real strength in their former belief. Whether Apollo was real or fake to them is simply neutral to the way they live their lives.
The only problem is when you accuse people of being shills or sheep when they have clearly studied the problem and drawn an informed conclusion.
I think Lunar Orbit does a great job of maintaining a top notch forum.
So do I. I've done his job before. He deserves more praise that we can give him.
|
|
|
Post by Sticks on Oct 12, 2005 1:44:00 GMT -4
Getting back to the original question This is a sort of generic conspiracy theorist rationale - Governments lie
- Therefore anything coming from a Government source is a big fat lie
- A Government organisation says a certain thing happened
- Therefore it did not
- All alleged evidence of it happening was faked
- Anyone who believes the official story then they must be either a shill or a naive and stupid fool with a closed mind
- The Government are trying to silence those trying to bring the "truth" to the masses
Does that about cover everything?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 12, 2005 1:44:41 GMT -4
Good points, Jay. I think that's why this forum is, imo, a level or three above the majority of its peers. Those who disagree with my view, for example, will provide reasons for why they disagree. I may take issue with those opinions, but it's enjoyable responding to posts of substance - markedly better than dealing with endless replies such as "Well, then you must be pretty stoopid" (spelling errors typical) or "We have PROOF!" (without providing any).
I know those of you on the other side of the argument get more than your share of similar replies at various forums. Some people have no clue about how inane or tedious they can be.....
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 12, 2005 1:50:42 GMT -4
This is a sort of generic conspiracy theorist rationale
* Governments lie * Therefore anything coming from a Government source is a big fat lie * A Government organisation says a certain thing happened * Therefore it did not * All alleged evidence of it happening was faked * Anyone who believes the official story then they must be either a shill or a naive and stupid fool with a closed mind * The Government are trying to silence those trying to bring the "truth" to the masses
Does that about cover everything?That's about it, I would think.. Now, if it all weren't so completely TRUE! ;D j/k - put away the poison pen (or keyboard)!
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 12, 2005 9:58:09 GMT -4
The Government are trying to silence those trying to bring the "truth" to the masses
It's funny how murderously efficient the gubmint is in causing jet crashes and heart attacks and burning or blowing up spacecraft, but they can't seem to find the louder HBs whose addresses are in the phone book (Sibrel, White, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 12, 2005 10:10:43 GMT -4
But that's easy to explain. They don't travel in jets or space capulses that NASA can sabotage, Dah!
|
|