|
Post by carpediem on Feb 13, 2011 13:36:08 GMT -4
We need the electronic equivalent of the research library, independent archives that regularly collect, index and store everything available to the public so there can be a reliable, unalterable historical record. But the amount of data is vast, and there are also significant legal and privacy issues to consider. www.archive.org/web/web.php
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Feb 14, 2011 13:01:56 GMT -4
Yes, I know about archive.org and use it quite a bit. It's a massive and very useful effort, but the web is just too big. I don't know if any one organization will ever be able to keep up with everything.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Feb 16, 2011 13:13:53 GMT -4
Yes, I know about archive.org and use it quite a bit. It's a massive and very useful effort, but the web is just too big. I don't know if any one organization will ever be able to keep up with everything. Not to mention that a new domain owner can prohibit or prevent archiving of the domain, which usually means that the older stuff is also lost.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 16, 2011 13:35:58 GMT -4
Which is what happened to moontruth.com erasing the proof that the fake moon video where the light falls was made by the website.
|
|
|
Post by jd on Feb 19, 2011 10:04:58 GMT -4
On page 7 of We Never Went to the Moon Bill Kaysing asked, "Why did the Dutch papers, circa 1969, question the authenticity of the moon landing?" The answer is simple: They didn't.
In the Nardwuar interview Kaysing admitted he had never seen any doubting Dutch newspapers. But that didn't stop other whistle suckers from repeating this rumour without, of course, bothering to check it out (e.g. Dark Moon, p. 289).
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Feb 21, 2011 18:18:02 GMT -4
This is the "big lie" principle in action. Most people are inherently honest, at least in the things that really matter, but they make the mistake of assuming that everyone else is just like them. So when they see someone like Kaysing out there making statements with what seem like strong personal conviction, it doesn't occur to them, at first, that they might just be making it all up. They take it on face value.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 22, 2011 9:55:01 GMT -4
This is the "big lie" principle in action. Most people are inherently honest, at least in the things that really matter, but they make the mistake of assuming that everyone else is just like them. So when they see someone like Kaysing out there making statements with what seem like strong personal conviction, it doesn't occur to them, at first, that they might just be making it all up. They take it on face value. But when it comes to statements we make the reverse is true. Since nobody can be trusted and there are conspiracies under every rock, everything we say is lies and disinformation. Whom the conspiracy crowd chooses to deem inherently honest and inherently dishonest depends on whether or not they like what they say.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 22, 2011 16:30:43 GMT -4
But when it comes to statements we make the reverse is true. Since nobody can be trusted and there are conspiracies under every rock, everything we say is lies and disinformation. Whom the conspiracy crowd chooses to deem inherently honest and inherently dishonest depends on whether or not they like what they say. I'd say that this is a common human fault. I have seen a lot of so-called skeptics readily accept an idea simply because they agreed with it. It takes a special mind set to be given information you want to be true and then dissect it to find out if it is true or not.
|
|