PDA

View Full Version : Another article



AstroMike
2002-Feb-26, 07:41 PM
http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/weird/media/mw-fakemoon.htm

The only thing I don't understand about this is why do people keep bringing up the "no stars", and "radiation" arguments. Weren't they refuted a long time ago? Why the conspiracy theorists keep using them as "evidence"?

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Feb-26, 09:05 PM
Note that the article is nearly 3 years old, and also has a link to here at the bottom!

AstroMike
2002-Feb-26, 09:12 PM
On 2002-02-26 16:05, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
Note that the article is nearly 3 years old, and also has a link to here at the bottom!


Yeah, but weren't the "no stars" and "radiation" arguments refuted since the 1970's?

Peter B
2002-Feb-27, 12:31 AM
I think you'll find it's a common feature with people like this, no matter what field of pseudo-science or conspiracy theory you're dealing with. They come up with something like "no stars" and think they're the first person who worked it out.

When you explain to people why their theory is wrong, some look like the proverbial stunned mullet, because they suddenly realise that maybe there are other, simpler explanations for what was going on, and because there are obviously other people than themselves who've looked at the issue. Other people nod and wander on, still convinced there's some reason they're right and you're wrong.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-27, 03:07 AM
The decades-old arguments persist because those who originally proposed them weren't interested in presenting a balanced argument. Neither are those who repeat them. And those who believe the old arguments aren't interested in hearing a balanced case.

Nearly every web author cribs from one or more of the primary sources: Bill Kaysing, Ralph Rene, Bart Sibrel, William Brian, James Collier, and David Percy. And to a certain extent the primary authors even crib from each other. David Percy, for example, essentially repeats Ralph Rene's radiation argument.

The web author goes out and reads a couple of conspiracy books, then puts together his site based on the books. It's really that simple. But of course the web author never goes out and reads a book on optics, or radiation, or physics, or any of the other topics that pertain to space travel. The web author simply assumes his primary author has done his research and has no reason to deceive or mislead him.

The typical web author exercises almost no original thought in putting together these sites.

ktesibios
2002-Feb-27, 06:29 AM
Here's an easy experiment that illustrates something about the way conspiracist Web sites work.

First, pick a favorite con theory. Then, pick a catchphrase relating to said con theory.

Next, plug your chosen catchphrase into Google ( best to use the advanced search page and the "with all the words" option).

Now, on your search results page, look at the short blurbs quoting text from each hit. Notice how many of the sites returned contain exactly the same text.

(Here's a prefab example: try this with "Gunderson Steel" as your search text. You'll get over a hundred repetitions of the hoary old myth about the 107,200 boxcars with shackles being built for the gummint to haul people away to FEMA's concentration camps, most of which repeat one of three variants word for word.)

See the pattern? I like to call it cyber-metastasis. It reminds me of the old "telephone" game, save that computerized cut-and-paste ensures that the meme passes from one site to the next unaltered.

That's how conspiracism on the Web works.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-27, 06:34 AM
I don't know how many times David Milne's article has been reproduced essentially verbatim on the web. Milne is certainly surprised, considering he didn't intend it seriously. But the conspiracy theorists just love it. You know you're on to something when you write pure crap and people fall all over themselves to believe it. Perhaps there really is a fortune in catering to the terminally gullible.

Peter B
2002-Feb-28, 12:17 AM
I'm probably going to regret asking this ( /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif ), but what article did David Milne write?

AstroMike
2002-Feb-28, 01:00 AM
This one (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm)

JayUtah
2002-Feb-28, 02:29 AM
Many altered, edited, or otherwise mangled versions of the article can be found on the web. The version on Clavius is the definitive text which was contributed by Mr. Milne himself.

http://www.clavius.org/bibmilne.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-02-27 21:30 ]</font>

jkmccrann
2005-Dec-03, 12:07 PM
I don't know how many times David Milne's article has been reproduced essentially verbatim on the web. Milne is certainly surprised, considering he didn't intend it seriously. But the conspiracy theorists just love it. You know you're on to something when you write pure crap and people fall all over themselves to believe it. Perhaps there really is a fortune in catering to the terminally gullible.

Never forget, `Fools and their money are easily parted.' Great saying, but I'm not sure who came up with it. But something to always keep in mind, even when you're playing poker. :)