In my experience those who have a poor approach to science also have a poor approach to religion -- more specifically, to their own religious beliefs if any. Conspiracists tend toward fundamentalism in religion, adopting rigid interpretations of the religion's teachings. In both cases the adherent seems to thrive on opposition, believing that if one's beliefs are opposed (regardless of the reason) then he or she must be "on the right track."
Dogmatism applies in both cases. One's interpretation of religion is simply defined as infallibly correct simply because it is the axiomatically infallible tenets (e.g., the Bible in the case of Christianity) that is being interpreted; the authority of the source is inappropriately carried into the interpretation. All questions that the religion addresses are addressed in black-and-white clarity. Similarly, conspiracists approach science in the same simplistic and dogmatic terms: shadows should be parallel and that's all there is to it.
In Sibrel's case, a fair amount of direct denial is required. Footage that directly contradicts his cutout or transparency argument is on the reel he saw. Sibrel makes the mistake of showing us the slate frames on his original footage, allowing us to narrow down his source to one single reel of videotape. We know now exactly what he was looking at. And on that reel is a glimpse of Earth through the window, from close up -- not across the cabin -- showing the frame in the picture. The camera moves, giving us appropriate parallax. It is one thing to allow one's interpretation of facts to be skewed by one's preconceptions. This is hard to avoid even for the seasoned researcher. But it is quite another thing simply to ignore pertinent facts that directly and conclusively contradict one's findings.
|