Am 25.04.2010 10:41, schrieb Orchid XP v8:

> One might argue that the difference between a magician and a conspiracy
> theorists is that few magicians believe that their tricks are real magic
> (regardless of what they tell everybody else). ;-)

I often get the feeling that the book-writing and DVD-selling subset of 
conspiracy theorists /do/ know that they're selling crap.

Post a reply to this message

>> One might argue that the difference between a magician and a conspiracy
>> theorists is that few magicians believe that their tricks are real magic
>> (regardless of what they tell everybody else). ;-)
> 
> I often get the feeling that the book-writing and DVD-selling subset of 
> conspiracy theorists /do/ know that they're selling crap.

Sure. You're probably right about that. But the poor saps who believe 
this stuff and parrot it to everybody they meet? Well, some of them know 
it's BS, but I get the feeling some of them genuinely believe it...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   A magician shows you a trick, and you have *no idea whatsoever* how it
> could possibly work. 

Reminds of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KSLRjDR4aQ

But yes, I've run into this a few times too.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I often get the feeling that the book-writing and DVD-selling subset of 
> conspiracy theorists /do/ know that they're selling crap.

  I think that what is happening with many of the conspiracy theorists who
are producing the "evidence" (rather than simply parroting what they have
heard from others) is that they honestly believe that *some* of that is
genuine evidence of fakery/conspiracy, while knowing perfectly well that
some other arguments are not valid and is easily explainable and verifiable.
Yet regardless of this they keep repeating both types of arguments.

  The Moon landing photos not showing stars is a perfect example of this.
Any conspiracy theorists can corroborate this by checking *other* photographs
taken in orbit (photos which are not in any way under suspicion) and see that
they, too, don't show any stars. They can corroborate this by consulting
books and professionals on the subject of photography. They can corroborate
this by making actual tests. I believe many of the conspiracy theorists who
produce "evidence" know that it's perfectly explainable why there are no
stars in the photos (and, on the contrary, if there *were* stars, *that*
would be suspicious).

  However, they still keep repeating the same old argument about the stars,
even though they know that the argument is not valid.

  Why? Because the stars argument sinks well on unwary people, and what they
are doing is so-called shotgun argumentation: They need as many arguments as
possible so as to give an impression that there's *tons* of evidence that
the photos are fake.

  This is a dishonest tactic, of course. They are basically lying (in other
words, claiming that the lack of stars is a genuine evidence of fakery even
though they themselves know it's not).

  And then they call NASA and the US government "liars". Talk about hypocrisy.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 21:24:14 +0200, Nekar Xenos  
<nek### [at] gmailcom> did spake thusly:

> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:21:32 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>>
>>> They're all in it together I tells ye, a vast conspiracy to let the  
>>> reptile people take over and eat all our hamsters.
>>
>> That's worryingly good.
>>
>> Some of these people must surely be suffering from a diagnosible mental  
>> condition...
>
> I wonder sometimes if conspiracy theories start this way. Somebody makes  
> a joke about something and some-one else takes it seriously... ;-)

Though in this case the response should be "Isn't that the plot from V?"

You know you're dealing with a crackpot if they come back with "Ah that's  
counter-intelligence, once someone discovers the reality it means everyone  
they tell just dismisses it as 'from a TV show'". If the show pre-dates  
the conspiracy then they're just being pro-active, very well-prepared, and  
just shows how long they've been covering it up.

I do own some of the conspiracy books and, as Warp has pointed out, as you  
read it you try to come up with a rational explanation but unless you're  
already aware of it you can struggle. Luckily there's plenty on the  
internet to quash these, of course that's where so many of them get  
started and snowball

To paraphrase one Mr H Simpson "The internet. The cause of, and solution  
to, all of life's problems"

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message