Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: BBC and hoaxbusting with attitude!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    38
    Just watching BBC News 24 here in the UK and caught a great two-minute segment about the HB debate. It was the style that impressed me......only flag waving was dealt with and Marcus Allen got his piece in but all in all the whole presentation was exactly what was needed.....no-nonsense pragmatism and Sir Patrick Moore to boot! Pity this little gem hasn't aired 'across the pond' yet....or am I mistaken?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    514
    No, it sounds too intelligent and well-researched to be put on US news.

  3. #3
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,354
    I saw a spread on C5. As you'd expect of the channel that aired the Fox Special, they were typically sensationalist about the whole thing.

    They mentioned the no stars and flag waving arguments but didn't even try to offer any kind of debunking. They had X-Files music and, despite a little bit of joviality in tone, they seemed to give the arguments the tabloid light of day.

    I was about to go to the UN to get a resolution to bomb C5 when they showed us a glimpse of Patrick Moore, who simply blasted the conspiracists with a tri-cobalt explosive. There little discussion panel was also fairly redeeming.

    The more emotive point was made about why NASA thought they needed to respond.

    They have a point. We wouldn't have heard a thing had they not decided to fight it. No, the conspiracy theory has got attention, which is not good. Nobody would have cared otherwise.

    It might get a mention on HIGNFY tonight, so let's hope they remain traditionally skeptical. I can't imagine Anne Robinson going in for conspiracy bunk.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Glom on 2002-11-08 14:58 ]</font>

  4. #4
    Guest
    On 2002-11-08 14:31, anu wrote:
    ...no-nonsense pragmatism and Sir Patrick Moore am I mistaken?
    coud be NNP just as well as M0F
    maybe better close enough to NOP
    FOR A CREDIT LINE...i mean line of credit
    November 10, 2002 5:14 A.M. Math hour
    Speaking2 the upcoming cover stories for the
    "BIG" rif.. my guess isthe Appolo(G?) hoax
    will not be in the top ten.. Shirley1, out of the Pacific NW
    will get air hours? witch story? donno ? Maybe Fish?

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-11-10 08:10 ]</font>

  5. #5
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,354
    No mention on HIGNFY. Paul and Ian were too busy pummelling Robinson. The webmaster at http://www.hignfy.net was not impressed.

  6. #6
    Guest
    <a name="2-11-09.$/s"> page 2-11-09.$/s aka $oventry of the Sysop
    its all to clear that those whom extract their
    feelings of superiority from National Soverent or even
    collective {the Euro} should express concern about
    the franking privliages of electrons.
    ---
    lets me for a minute {8:21 A.M.} examine the
    the increase in cost of TV propaganda
    vs the increase in cost {8:22 A.M.} of
    computer generated ideas.. and contrast the CONtent {enough said} 2-11-10 5:23 A.M. well maybe not2

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-11-10 08:15 ]</font>

  7. #7
    re BBC vs US news:
    Someone really smart (Randi, or Gould, or Cliff Stoll) pointed out once that a major failing of US newsmedia is their lock-step insistence on providing equal time and equal credence to spokespeople for both sides of an issue. Thus a professor of Astronomy and a traveling evangelistic wacko each get 15 seconds of airtime. Worse, the reporter rarely takes the time to point out the relative reliability of the two, so the audience is left with an impression of equal weight. Very Sad.
    Carl

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,677
    On 2002-11-09 11:35, cellocgw wrote:

    re BBC vs US news:
    Someone really smart (Randi, or Gould, or Cliff Stoll) pointed out once that a major failing of US newsmedia is their lock-step insistence on providing equal time and equal credence to spokespeople for both sides of an issue. Thus a professor of Astronomy and a traveling evangelistic wacko each get 15 seconds of airtime. Worse, the reporter rarely takes the time to point out the relative reliability of the two, so the audience is left with an impression of equal weight. Very Sad.
    Carl
    Welcome on board, cellocgw (Carl).

    Good point you brought up. I don't know if I agree fully with the notion of equal time. I think that's generally fair. But I think it should be less an equal absolute time as an equal chance to express your views clearly, since some views take longer to convey than others (see below). But I fully agree with the equal weight comment. Unless people are given the proper background with which to judge a statement, the audience is likely to give it more weight than it deserves.

    This is especially true when conveying something new to the listener. Psychologically, the average person gives more weight to his first encounter with something, and if it gets imprinted strongly enough, it becomes harder to dislodge. It's harder to change someone's mind about an idea than to get him to accept one in the first place.

    That's one reason why these conspiracy ideas spread. It is much easier to cast doubt in someone's mind than to convey accurate information. So the cards are stacked against us from the very start. People tend to get confused by detailed scientific explanations. A quick sound bite is all a conspiracist needs to hook someone's attention, whereas the other side needs to convey the scientific principles behind the counter-argument; something that is likely to drive the average person to change the channel or put him to sleep if not crafted carefully.

    Hmm, and here's one more thought. The average mainstream theory is put at another disadvantage in these circumstances. Since The Apollo missions are generally accepted to be true, there's no need for Apollo believers to go "crusading" to get people to accept them. There has never been any controversy, so the average person just doesn't think about it either way. So when one of these hoax evangelists comes around, it's all new info to the average person, and thus it gains the advantage of first contact. NASA and Apollo are then automatically put on the defensive, and have to carefully and patiently work to correct the misconceptions, while the Hoax advocators can just sit back and occasionally throw in a new doubt here and there.

  9. #9
    Guest
    <a name="2 CIMI 0 ZAC"> page 2 CIMI 0 ZAC aka 2 CIMI 0 ZAC
    ON 2002-11-09 13:16, DAVID HALL WROTE: To? 2

    On 2002-11-09 11:35, cellocgw wrote:

    re BBC vs US news:
    Someone really smart (Randi, or Gould, or Cliff Stoll) pointed out once that a major failing of US newsmedia is their lock-step insistence on providing equal time and equal credence to spokespeople for both sides of an issue. Thus a professor of Astronomy and a traveling evangelistic wacko each get 15 seconds of airtime. Worse, the reporter rarely takes the time to point out the relative reliability of the two, so the audience is left with an impression of equal weight. Very Sad.
    Carl
    [/quote]

    Welcome on board, cellocgw (Carl).

    Anyway0: my guess would be that any one
    "ELECTRON" weighs as much as any one other?

    So to me its not a wait Question at all
    but a Question of Velocity.

    OR as I would say dV/dT ' [um first dirivity of acceleration}?
    WHATEVER? so 4me its just a matter of NOT being
    hit by one that boosts the total energy to "rattle" level

Similar Threads

  1. Public Attitude towards NASA in the 60s
    By cjackson in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2012-Mar-17, 04:39 PM
  2. ISS Attitude
    By FernandoJ in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2008-Jun-25, 11:00 AM
  3. question re: LM attitude during descent
    By mathyou9 in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2007-Jul-14, 08:41 PM
  4. Attitude
    By genuine_yttri in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2002-Nov-07, 01:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •