|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
 Posted - 08/09/2004 : 12:55:34
|
|
Is the belief that the Apollo program could have been faked skepticism or is it merely conspiracy theory? I think I know the answer, but some those who believe, or at least acknowledge the possibility of this conspiracy theory, call themselves skeptics. Is there such a thing as Unhealthy Skepticism and does it fuel Conspiracy Theory? Or is this a case of not being skeptical enough of the professed skepticism itself? Does a good skeptic have to stand guard not only against the gullible but against the fellow skeptic as well?
|
-Chaloobi
|
Edited by - chaloobi on 08/09/2004 12:56:27
|
|
|
N C More
Skeptic Friend
53 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2004 : 13:34:17 [Permalink]
|
| Eeek!..."Moon Hoax Believers" aren't skeptics they're people who fail to examine the evidence. Please go here and here. Take the time to read Dr. Plait and Dr. Windley's excellent explanations. Do this and I guarantee that you'll place the MHB's into a catagory far from that of "skeptics"! |
"An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get some really weird bugs!" |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2004 : 13:51:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is the belief that the Apollo program could have been faked skepticism or is it merely conspiracy theory? I think I know the answer, but some those who believe, or at least acknowledge the possibility of this conspiracy theory, call themselves skeptics.
These people are not skeptics. They believe in a conspiracy which has no supporting evidence and reject all of the evidence which clearly shows that the Apollo moon landing occurred.
They are no more skeptics than Fundies which are 'skeptical' of an Earth that is billions of years old.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2004 : 14:55:08 [Permalink]
|
Oy veh, not again!
It is neither skepticsm nor a good conspiricy theory. It is a bit of comedy put forth for our amusment by dingbats.
Like a lot of too-old standup routines, the joke's getting a little tired.
These are no more than people being people, albeit a bit sillier than most. They are pretty much the same sort of folks who claim to have been probed by horney, pop-eyed aliens or claim John Edward is the real deal. I have a sneaking suspition that they spend a lot of time on psyhic hotlines and do a bit of astrology in their spare time.
Beyond inspiring a chuckle or two, not worth a listen.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2004 : 17:29:22 [Permalink]
|
When did the Moon Landing Hoax start to spread?
My guess is that the hoax originally started with the 1978 movie "capricorn one". (Link to IMDB)
Synopsis: A movie about the first manned mission to Mars, and what happens after.
Just moments before the takeoff, scientists or engineers (have only vague memories of the movie since it was at least 15 years since I saw it) realized that the life-support system wasn't sufficient. They had cut too many corners due to low budgeting or something.
Now, scrapping the mission at it final stages of the launch was inconcievable, so they decided to save the astronauts and fake the entire mission.
They rush the astronauts out of the rocket, and sets up a recording studio with lots of tech stuff in order so simulate the mission. Lots of public media intervies and other things with simulated time delays, days in the capsule while a fake surface of Mars was being set up in a huge hangar. Lower gravity simulated with slow-motion takes...
The faked mission was a success, but when the real automated ship/capsule returns from Mars without it's crew onboard, a fatal malfunction makes it explode on reentry.
The whole world watches the mission go up in flame, and in the public eye the astronauts are dead. It doesn't take long for the astronauts themselves to realise that they are now a huge liability, so they decide escape before NASA makes them "disappear"...
I haven't seen the "Moon Landing Hoax" documentary, but I bet there are many explanations of the Moon Hoax that are similar to Capricorn One.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2004 : 18:44:57 [Permalink]
|
Filthy, you crack me up (in a GOOD way). It's probably mean but those "aliens abducted me and played with my pee pee" folks make me giggle.
I see a difference between skepticism and contrarianism. I see skepticism as critical thinking, analyzing motives and intent, reading, learning, attempting to dispell stereotypes and biases, weighing evidence, seeing both sides, etc.
I see contrarianism as doubting or being against the dominant or widely accepting thinking JUST because it's the dominant or widely accepted thinking. That's how I see the moon walking conspiracy theorists.
NOT that I'm ever a contrarian.  |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2004 : 19:54:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Filthy, you crack me up (in a GOOD way). It's probably mean but those "aliens abducted me and played with my pee pee" folks make me giggle.
I see a difference between skepticism and contrarianism. I see skepticism as critical thinking, analyzing motives and intent, reading, learning, attempting to dispell stereotypes and biases, weighing evidence, seeing both sides, etc.
I see contrarianism as doubting or being against the dominant or widely accepting thinking JUST because it's the dominant or widely accepted thinking. That's how I see the moon walking conspiracy theorists.
NOT that I'm ever a contrarian.
I am often a contrarian, and a pretty rabid one, but I don't let my natural predisposition to go against the grain spoil my thinking. Facts be's facts, there's nothing I can do to change 'em, so there's no point in arguing against 'em beyond taking a snide dig at the pompous, now and again. And too often, the pompous are so easy to dig at, they're no fun.
Good description of an honest skeptic.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2004 : 19:58:12 [Permalink]
|
I believe Renae nailed the answer to your actual questions, Chaloobi. Anyone can call themselves a "skeptic" (witness the zillions of testimonials for alternative health-care therapies which being "I used to be a skeptic, but..."). People who are truly skeptical (in the sense we use the term here on this web site) are easily distinguished from contrarians, cynics, and the faithful simply by examination of their actions.
I once got into a long discussion of the Moon photos with an MHB who refused to do something as simple as scribble a couple of parallel lines on a piece of paper to demonstrate to himself that they only look parallel from a narrow range of viewpoints. He claimed to be a seeker of knowledge, but refused to seek knowledge, even when offered step-by-step instructions on getting to it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2004 : 05:24:16 [Permalink]
|
Thank you everybody. Renae, your answer was particularly good, thanks.
Dave W, what's the significance of the parallel lines? Just curious.
And lastly, a funny coincidence - at the bottom of the thread, just under Dave's post, was a banner add with a graphic of the moon lander and text announcing "the Eagle has landed." Too funny. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Wulfstan
New Member
USA
42 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2004 : 05:41:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dave W said:
I believe Renae nailed the answer to your actual questions, Chaloobi. Anyone can call themselves a "skeptic" (witness the zillions of testimonials for alternative health-care therapies which being "I used to be a skeptic, but..."). People who are truly skeptical (in the sense we use the term here on this web site) are easily distinguished from contrarians, cynics, and the faithful simply by examination of their actions.
I don't think there's anything wrong with being skeptical in the simplest form of the word--doubtful, uncertain. There were people skeptical of the lunar landings from the day the Saturn V left the launch pad, and that's OK. A healty doese of skepticism is good. I am skeptical of the many claims our administration makes, paranormal activities, fad diets, etc. I am often skeptical of people's motives. Skepticism derives from the Greek word skeptikos, which means thoughtful. Too, there are conspiracies--people do conspire to commit unlawful acts or whatever, so I think of skepticism as simply doubting or taking things at face value.
But, I agree with Dave and Renae, in that skepticism has evolved into meaning "skepticism=critical thinking." The HB'ers turn their uncertainty into an obsession. What is obsession but a "preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling?" There are people walking around who are skeptical of the moon landings, but have not delved into it (I've asked around and the most recent reply I got was: "I haven't thought about it much, but anything is possible." Meaning it is possible they were faked). Those people are different from HB'ers in that they haven't been presented with mounds of evidence and are refusing to accept that evidence. HB'ers have lost reason and wallow in obsession.
Talk to a few of them, and they are contrary to A LOT of things--sometimes it's difficult to distinguish the skeptics from the contrarians, but as Dave suggests, that usually becomes apparent by their behavior and further discussion.
Though Wikepedia is written by anyone, I often like their synopses. See here for info on skepticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
It appears to me that many people here adhere to this:
"The term skeptic is now usually used to refer to a person who takes a critical position in a given situation, usually by employing the principles of critical thinking and the scientific method (that is, scientific skepticism) to evaluate the validity of claims and practices. Skeptics view empirical evidence as important, as it provides possibly the best way to determine the validity of a claim."
But look at the paragraph after that one....
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2004 : 06:45:04 [Permalink]
|
Chaloobi wrote:quote:
Dave W, what's the significance of the parallel lines? Just curious.
Because the Sun is so far away, the shadows from two vertical sticks (for example) should be parallel. MHBs point to lunar photos which appear to show non-parallel shadows, and claim that "proves" that there was a point light source much closer by. The only problem is, the photos are taken of shadows on uneven ground, with the camera at an angle other than perpendicular to the direction of the shadows. Take a photo of any otherwise-parallel lines under similar conditions, and they won't look parallel. Remember the poster for Close Encounters of the Third Kind? The edges of the road "should" be parallel - according to the MHBs - but clearly they aren't. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 02:59:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan
Though Wikepedia is written by anyone, I often like their synopses. See here for info on skepticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
It appears to me that many people here adhere to this:
"The term skeptic is now usually used to refer to a person who takes a critical position in a given situation, usually by employing the principles of critical thinking and the scientific method (that is, scientific skepticism) to evaluate the validity of claims and practices. Skeptics view empirical evidence as important, as it provides possibly the best way to determine the validity of a claim."
But look at the paragraph after that one....
quote:
While skepticism involves the use of the scientific method and of critical thinking, this does not mean that skeptics necessarily use these tools consistently or simply find that there is indeed evidence of their belief.
What about it? I'd be skeptical of anyone who claimed to be an infallible skeptic.
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 07:12:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Is the belief that the Apollo program could have been faked skepticism or is it merely conspiracy theory? I think I know the answer, but some those who believe, or at least acknowledge the possibility of this conspiracy theory, call themselves skeptics. Is there such a thing as Unhealthy Skepticism and does it fuel Conspiracy Theory? Or is this a case of not being skeptical enough of the professed skepticism itself? Does a good skeptic have to stand guard not only against the gullible but against the fellow skeptic as well?
These Hoax believers fall into three categories that I have seen
1) Uninformed: These folks latch onto things that "don't look quite right" or factoids (as Rush would call them) and then claim that something is an impossibility. These are usually based on an incomplete knowledge of or complete lack of study in the particular subject that they claim the anomoly is in. (non-parallel shadows, two astronauts reflected in a helmet, etc)
2) Selling something: A sub-class of type 1, these folks try to make a buck off of their anomolies and sometimes hunt and harrass past Apollo crewmen. (getting a knuckle sandwich on national TV when they threaten a man half their size and twice their age.)
3) Complete and utter whackjobs: These folks claim everything from seeing these substructures in the moon while examining LSJ digitized photos on a computer monitor with a magnifying glass to direct two-way communication with a supreme being or advanced alien civilization.
I've seen the objections. I've tested them when I could and gotten good measurements or found out more on subjects which were out of my study to debunk/affirm any issues. To date exactly zero claims of the moon hoax believers which remotely had a scientific basis have been affirmed by my own study. Once definatively debunked, one need not analyze the same arguement/issue again. It remains invalid. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2004 : 07:46:08 [Permalink]
|
| They're no more skeptic than creationists are scientists... they use those words to come off as reasonable people. They know they must do this, because they're not very reasonable. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
