The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity. - Harlan Ellison

How true ...

:P

__________________
Dave

Anyone seen my marbles? Anyone ... ?

That is the whole point, to keep people in the dark under a cloud of confusion.

The problem is that the conspiracy theories generally only use a fraction of the available information, grossly oversimplify many things, and bring in apparently irrelevant material to attempt to fill holes in their theories. If anyone is "keeping us in the dark," it is these conspiracy authors. They're the ones obfuscating what little real information they possess.

The conspiracy theorists have a vested interest in keeping their readers in the belief that they're suffering under oppression and confusion. But the oppression is largely nonexistent and the confusion is the mess they themselves create.

To those of us who understand science and engineering and who have extensively researched Apollo, there is no serious cause to question the authenticity of the missions. There is less confusion when you take the conspiracy theorists out of the picture. What does that say to you?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

And therein lies the real point I think. As long as it is profitable to believe the hoax (or at least give the appearance of believing), the people who promote the hoax won't be swayed. Perhaps the real solution is to find a way for the truth to be more profitable than the hoax. Then you'll see an opinion swing.

Not everyone who expouses compsiracies is out to make money. Some of us expouse them simply because we believe them to be the truth and don't make a cent from it. Besides, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black surely. NASA and astronauts like Buzz Aldrin have made a hoard of money from the supposed moon landings through speaking engagements etc.

The difference is that Buzz Aldrin gets paid to tell the truth while the hoax authors get compensated for spreading lies and ignorance. I'm also pretty sure those who have created Web pages to debunk these hoax theories don't make a dime off it. I can't speak for Jay and the others, but I can assure you my Web page is entirely a voluntary effort with no intent to profit from it. I do it solely to educate people and to do my small part to slow the spread of this absurd moon landing hoax theory.

I make no revenue whatsoever from Clavius, and it is operated at my personal expense. If Clavius turned out to be completely false, such that I would be compelled to remove it, it would save me hundreds of dollars a year.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Besides, this is a case of the pot calling the keetle black surely.

Not at all. That would suppose both parties were guilty of the same thing. In this case the situations are mutually exclusive. Both sides cannot be lying, therefore such accusations are certainly not a case of 'the pot calling the kettle black'.

The fact is that Apollo is far better supported by hard evidence than any conspiracy theory. A number of conspiracist authors have had their work challenged but refuse to discuss the challenge without resorting to insults or attacks on the challenger. Conspiracists regularly shift the goalposts so that their claim to want to be shown the truth of Apollo can never be met (witness Bill Kaysing changing his tune in a recent documentary as soon as he learned that a plan was afoot by a space agency independednt of NASA to send a probe that could image the landers on the Moon).

If you believe these conspiracy theories to be the truth then fine (though I would urge some real research), but it is also true that some conspiracists are demonstrably out for nothing more than making money out of peddling crap.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

I think the bulk of conspiracy theorists write/post/make websites out of a sense of sharing "the truth", of informing others. Now they may be wrong, and they may be misinformed, and their motives may be misguided by other factors, like distrust of authority and the need to improve their position by discounting experts, etc. But the root of sharing is to help others.

Making money off the venture is not in itself wrong. Taking a speaking fee to make an attendance, or selling a book to cover the expenses of making the book, etc. Heck, managing to make a living at it, as long as it's an honest attempt to distribute knowledge (however wrong that "knowledge"). There may be a segment of people who knowingly deceive their audience to make a buck, but I suspect that is a minority.

I don't find it particularly useful to accuse folks of this without evidence. If they blatantly and repeatedly ignore information and repeat disproven statements, or if the bulk of their argument is "buy my book", then it may be valid to conclude they just want profit. But just noticing that they sell a book doesn't suggest that profit is their motive.

Only according to your belief system or perception, it is Buzz Aldrin who is telling the truth. The HBers would say the opposite.

The point of the money angle is - it is a weak argument at best to use this as a means of identifying who is perceived as being dishonest, since some on both sides of the argument are making money, and many more on both sides of the argument aren't making a cent.

So to say (for instance) that Sibrel must be phony because he's making money is as much a nonsical argument as saying that Buzz must be phony for making money.

Sheeze, Jay, you really need to get in touch with your handler at the NSA and get them to speed up the cheques. 8-[

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

So to say (for instance) that Sibrel must be phony because he's making money is as much a nonsical argument as saying that Buzz must be phony for making money.

If that were the argument then that would be the case, but it is not.

Sibrel is phony because he supposedly has smoking gun footage that will blow open the biggest conspiracy in the world, which would make him world famous and in all probability a millionaire, but you have to pay him to see this footage. He sells video of astronauts getting angry and dresses it up as them having something to hide, but doesn't show how much he harrassed those astronauts to make them angry in the first place. He is deliberately making money off something he knows is at the very least economical with the truth.

Bennett and Percy are phony because they published a book and video that are internally inconsistent (they argue that the saturn V was not a moon capable vehicle one minute, then claim it was used to send surrogate astronauts to the Moon another), takes cheap shots about names (that someone in NASA had a name that means testicles in another language is utterly irrelevant), and rips lines from their appropriate context and applies inappropriate spin to them. When challenged they refuse to discuss their work.

Now, depending on who you believe, you could argue that each side is making money from fraud. But the major conspiracists are accusing the astronauts of fraud while indisputably committing it themselves. If they wish to claim the moral high ground as ambassadors for truth then they have a responsibility to present the truth clearly, without obfuscation and without obvious money-making schemes attached.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

The combination of pecuniary interest and patterns of deceptive behavior are what is suspicious here. People make legitimate money as scholars, authors, investigators, etc. But conspiracy theorists differ from bona fide investigators by how they respond to criticism. Conspiracists hide their lack of training and expertise. They act, on occasion, to stifle and suppress evidence that contradicts their findings.

Sibrel, for example, limits question-and-answer sessions to one question per person -- no followups. This makes his response the last word on any subject, and so it can be as wrong as possible yet perhaps mildly convincing.

Kaysing gives misleading credentials to inflate his credibility.

Bennett and Percy simply withdraw from public comment and hide behind anonymous witnesses, sallying forth only once in a blue moon to say, "Our critics made a minor mistake, therefore our arguments still work."

Take away those patterns of evasion and deception and you have ordinary authors trying to make a living writing books or making movies. Take away the monetary reward and you have ordinary crackpots or troublemakers just stirring the pot. But put the two together and you have people trying to earn money by deception. While it isn't fraud by the letter of the law, it's certainly fraudulent in spirit.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

"Belief" and "perception" are irrelevent...evidence is relevent. The totality of evidence demonstrates that the Moon landings actually did occur.

But it is a belief or perception that is supported by overwhelming evidence and has the backing of every qualified expert. The HBs put their faith in an illusion.

I never made any such argument, nor has anyone else. I've yet to hear anyone say Sibrel and others of his ilk are phony because they are making money off their endeavors. They are phony based on the deceptive nature of their arguments and their poor response to criticism, and they happen to be phonies who are making money off their deception.

But people have commented that their only or primary motivation is to make money. That suggests that making money is inherently a bad thing. When the real answer is that some of them are more concerned with the money than the truth.

When your primary goal is to make money, to the point where you don't care how you do it, then I think it is a bad thing.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Making money is an honorable thing, made honorable by the congruence of price to performance. Enzo Ferrari was rich because he made the world a better place through his automobiles. He contributed to society and justly profits. There is equity because we presume that, within rough limits, what someone earns equates to what he contributes to society. I contribute to the financial success of Wolfgang Puck and he contributes to my full stomach. It's win-win.

Making money without that congruence removes the honor from moneymaking. The transfer of wealth is one-way, and the proposition is win-lose. The reader is left with a head full of lies and society is left with factually bankrupt superstition.

Moneymaking is not an inherently bad thing, but the goal of making it carries with it responsibilities. If those responsibilities are not met, the moneymaking becomes a bad thing in that context.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

How delightfully libertarian.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

Ah, but the HBs are wrong. This is the key point. They are demonstrably wrong, which is why I, Jay, Bob, and others created our pages/sites.

We have gone to the trouble to show specifically where they are wrong, go over their claims point-by-point, and how to see what the truth really is. All they do is cast innuendo and bad reasoning around. We show what's really going on.

So your argument is without merit. It doesn't matter that both sides say the other is wrong. What matters is the body of evidence. Theirs is fatally flawed. Ours is correct.