Quote:
|
"After reading several well-researched books and videos, I wrote Moondoggle, my $5 booklet, #32 in my catalog. The Brasscheck videos confirm the fakery by showing the occasional reflections of light on the wires which allowed the astronauts to bounce around, supposedly on the Moon."
|
Thinking about the above-quote, consider this; how well-researched is it, when an author basis his book off of other books, when anyone has access to research the films, photos, and equipment used first hand? That's called laziness. And it also shows that his work is not his work, its a compilation of other people's work. That's called plagerism.
I'm sure the author would argue that his works are his own, and are not plagerized. But then you can't take someone else's "work", add your un-supported by fact opinion to it, then still call your work well researched.
(Oh joy, another one of Fazor's far-out similies). Okay, I'm a big Cleveland Browns fan. If I want to write a book about why the 2007 Cleveland Browns are the best team in the NFL, I could read all the articles in the local sports sections; better yet, the sports sections from Cleveland area papers, and then write a booklet based on that plus my personal opinion that these articles are well researched and unbiased.
But player statistics are freely available, and I could just as easily (although with a lot more work on my part) actually research their various achievements and statistics compared to that of the other 31 NFL teams, and then see if it still supports my idea that the Browns are the best (it wouldn't, btw).
Anyway, I don't know if anyone can ever follow my similies, but it's the same thing here. And I know I just said it in another thread last week, but just because someone says that something is supported by facts, or was "well researched", doesn't mean that it was. Unfortunately, no special license is required to use the word "fact", and therefore it gets thrown around by many people who have a poor grasp of what a fact actually is.