Ok, I've been thinking about Richard Hoagland and his hyperdimensional hurricanes and "Bucky Ball" Iapetus, David Icke and his hollow Earth and shape shifting Reptilians, Bart Sibrel and his "we never went to the moon" notion. I honestly find it difficult to think that grown men actually believe this stuff!

So, what does everyone think, do they really believe this stuff? Or, do they have more in common with P.T. Barnum?

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

I've always thought it was more to do with $$$$$ than anything else. In fact, make that exclusively about $$$$$.

As long as there are people who will - and I mean this literally - buy their theories, they'll keep selling them.

I agree, its mostly the bucks. If I wrote a 400 page, college level text, with a title like, "The Geologic Morphology of the Apollo 15 Landing Site". Who would buy it? Maybe a couple of Babbers, but not Joe Sixpac.

However, a 200 page, 8th grade text, with a title like, "NASA Hoax's: How the Government Lies About Everthing". Everybody would buyit. Joe, because it would be something he could understand. And Babbers, just to see what nonsense is out there. I'd be rich in a week.

__________________
I'm not a scientist, but I play one on the internet.
http://www.rrac.org

well, somebody obviously has to believe it somewhere along the line. frankly, I'm of the opinion that the lot of it is actionable, and I can't believe more of these people haven't been sued. (in fact, a Holocaust revisionist once sued a historian for calling the revisionist a bad historian. needless to say, the revisionist lost the case.)

however, I do agree that a fair number of the authors are in it for the money, and I do also believe that a certain percentage are actually mentally ill, which would be why they believe some of this stuff. I name no names, because I have nothing that would hold up in court and no reason to consider myself an expert opinion, but I'm sorry--putting your dog to sleep to avoid Crackpot End-of-the-World Scenario means you're not a con artist, you're seriously ill.

but, yes, I have actually talked to people--and not just online, either--who believe some of this stuff. I suspect anyone who believes all of it would be too sick to interact with the public much. (though some of them do seem to have the internet in the asylum . . . .)

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

So, lets say I was to go on TV and say that BS (or any other hb'er) was lying when they claim that men have not landed on the moon. Any ideas what the legal outcome would be if they filed a lawsut against me? I did hear that Jim Lovell had to defend himself after calling one of those kooks a kook. Thanks.

Ranb

What country are you in?

In the US they have to prove that your statements were malicious and false to constitute libel.

Ranb:
You have run into several things here. First we have the concept of public person - I don't know any legalese - so if you call your neighbor a liar, he can sue you, but if you call your congressman a liar, he cannot because he is a public person. Not sure where the line is drawn on that one.

Next, you didn't say that what he said was incorrect or even unture, you called him a liar. That ought to make you vulnerable to prosecution. You can confront his data, but his person.

Whether he would want to is a separate matter.

Hoagland at least is as far as I can tell completely a self-promoting flim flam. I doubt he believes any of it, and it keeps changing anyway. I said this, no I really said that, but I really meant this all along as I previously said....

But aside from the probably higher percentage of people selling this cynically, I have no doubt that a lot of folks truely believe the moon landing was fake. They see one of these shows on TV wherer several doubters trot out rationalizations for hoaxing, and joe six pack says gee that looks reasonable, and thinks no further. He is now a believer. "Awww, they faked that," is as far as his thoughts on the matter go.

Now, I know that there are people who latch onto this stuff and believe it hook, line and sinker. No question there. Like Gillian, I've run into these folks time and time again!

What I was really wondering is if the creators of this stuff are simply looking to make an easy buck and know it's total nonsense, or are they (or do they become) as deluded as the people they are fleecing? Listening to Mr. Hoagland, I can't help but wonder if he doesn't really believe he's onto "the truth"? Some of the moon hoax believers also seem to be really convinced of their beliefs as well.

When I first came upon these purveyors of conspiracy and "out there" stuff I was convinced that it was 100% 'bout the Benjamins. As time passes and I look at them more carefully I'm not so sure.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

I think they genuinely believe it. Yes, they sell books - but some of these people gave up healthy careers to pursue these notions, they've subjected themselves to (understandable) ridicule, and not all have become millionaires. You only need to look at some of the web-sites that people put up at their own expense to peddle their distorted ideas of reality (I'm thinking of our mate Brad Guth here) to see that money isn't necessarily the motivation here, it's the delusion that they have an important and critical secret that they must tell the world about.

__________________
"We need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

I agree; I think they must genuinely believe the stuff.

Afterall, the publishing industry is only marginally profitable so I can't see them as motivated by the money off book sales.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I think Hoagland is sane, and I do not think he believes a word of his own theories. I think he simply has found a very lucrative niche.

Nancy Lieder, on the other hand, are several cards short of a deck. I have heard some radio-shows with her, and she is definitely quite out of touch with the real world.

Greetings.

I pretty much agree with those thoughts. If anything, RCH has an unhealthy (to science, anyway) need for publicity. At the least, it's a very immature quality (my wife says I'M immature, but she's just a big boogerhead) that seems to drive him to make up increasingly improbable stuff.

Nancy seems to have real trouble with reality, and David Icke also fills that descripiton. Alex Jones, in my opinion borders on being criminally insane as his assertions seem aimed a creating conflict.

Regards, tbm

I believe there are shysters out there trying to make a buck but I don't think it's all about money with those people. They crave attention. It's hard to "get in someone's head" and know what they're really thinking but I believe a lot of the "peddlers" actually believe what they spout. As a former believer in a lot of things from the fringe it was easy to tie certain things into whatever woo theory I entertained at the time. As an example, before leaving the "Dark Side" I was very sympathetic to Vallee's idea of an inter-dimensional "trickster" and found that everything from UFOs to Bigfoot could be "explained" using this rationale. The wackier the tale the more it reinforced the concept (in my mind), so it's not a stretch to imagine that others that have strong convictions about something would see things with the same tunnel-vision.

But the other side of the question is: Why are there a "not unsignificant number" of people who believe in the stuff spouted by Hoagland, Jones, etc. I can understand the notion that some believe that everything that "Authority" (government, etc) says is a lie and that Hoagland claims resonate with these people. The ones I don't understand are those who believe in the Greys, Reptiles, Panet X, etc. Those theories are so far out that there is simply no logic to them.

__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." -- Salvor Hardin (Isaac Asimov)

I have a friend I meet every friday for breakfast. He is basically intelligent and well balanced (he is a retired medical school faculty member). I met him because he posted a message about Planet X to a BB I read. I did manage to convince him that NL was wacko long before the 2003 magic date. On the other hand he says he believes that Katrina and Rita were guided towards the Gulf coast to damage the oil industry and hence cause a depression so the bankers could buy up the depressed stocks that would result. He mentioned a mysterious weather control system in Alaska (he had not heard of HAARP however). He seems to really believe this stuff.

I'll take a stab at this since I used to be from the "other side of town," so to speak.

When one believes in something they have their own logic as to why they feel the way they do, so in this context "logic" is subjective. Believers of woo certainly don't think their beliefs are "illogical." I believe the key as to why some people continue to believe in various woo is that they fail to think "outside the box" which is a requirement for true objectivity/critical thinking. Believers of woo haven't reached a point where they think "hey, wait a minute!" to awaken it .. some never do. I believe that in some cases scientific/astronomical ignorance plays a part too - think of Galileo supposedly making Jupiter ignite, Nancy's Planet X, or ET's disdain for interstellar distances to come here and do nothing but frolic in our skies, mutilate cows, and abduct people for decades/centuries as examples.

I guess that it's the illogic of their internal logic that bothers me. I tried my hand at debunking a couple of times and once had a conversation with a staunch believer in woo, mainly focused on a all-powerful and all-seeing government. I tried to battle his internal logic, but got nowhere. The conversation went something like this:

ME: If you believe that the all-powerful government knows everything and controls our lives, how can you post what you believe to be the truth on the internet and not get caught.
HE: I protect myself and create this aura so they can't find me.
ME: Even if they can't find you, they could certainly delete the information you post.
HE: They don't want to. They want to give us the illusion of freedom.
ME: Even the illusion of freedom can be dangerous. If too many people believe you and your theories, it could cause "them" trouble.
HE: No, they are too powerful and it won't make a difference anyway.
ME: Then why do you propound your ideas and theories.
HE: So that everyone will know the truth.

That's a much scaled down gist of the conversation. It was rather sad.

Back on topic, another reason not mentioned as a reason why some people pitch woo has nothing to do with money, or ego, or whether or not they truly believe it. I think some people are in it for the "game" of it. It becomes an intellectual exercise in concocting a "way out" theory and then debating and defending it against all comers. It's simply a game.

__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." -- Salvor Hardin (Isaac Asimov)

It is sad and something I see way too often.That's a very good point. Just to be ornery I used to create temporary AOL screen names with opposite political affiliations and debate politics on AOL's message boards. What was funny was the people that agreed with one version of me tried to tear me apart when I was posting in my other incarnation. I did it because it was fun and intellectually stimulating. It was a game.

The difference between what I used to do and those that peddle woo for kicks is that what they're doing isn't a case of someone harmlessly poking fun at the Donkey or Elephant political platforms here in the States, instead it's an attempt to promote what Dr. Plait (the Bad Astronomer) describes as "anti-science." There's a lot of gullible people on the net, including impressionable kids, and the intentional misrepresentation of the virtues of science and critical thinking is bad enough .. but when you factor in that a lot of the malarkey involves gloom and doom fear-mongering, it's reprehensible.

I think it's impossible to determine what motivates people to post hokum unless you really know them but I don't think one can ever go wrong meeting it head-on and countering it with critical thinking and science whenever you see it. You never know who's out there reading it and just might make a difference to those not playing games.

I had to right a test for a school assingment once on the early Amercan Colonies. ( this is slightly off topic) One of the questions was:who led the first voyage to circumnavigate the Earth? A) Magellan B) Columbus C) Frank Drake ( It was Francis Drake but ,I wanted to make the test easy, even though the Testee made a 50) D) Richard Hoagland. Also who was metacom? A)King Phillip B) Phil Plait

__________________
Aim high (but don't blow yourself up)!- Homer Hickam

In Soviet Russia, UFO report you!- Phil Plait

Carl Sagan may have seen a pale blue dot, but I see a sapphire.- Doug Phillips, Discovering Alabama.

Clear skies Maksutov.

erm, Magellan led the first expedition to circumnavigate the Earth, actually. the fact that he, personally, died in the Philippines is irrelevant. members of his expedition made it back to Spain.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

There is a good reason for debunking even when there's no hope of ever changing the mind of the conspiracy theorist, and that's all the other people reading the conversation who might think, "Hey, that sounds reasonable!" or "You know, that rock formation really does look like a face."

It's worthwhile to argue with even the wackiest "theories" if only for the purpose of showing lurking readers that the "theories" have no basis in reality.

And some who wonder about these theories honestly are looking for answers. I have been asked about 4 times about Leider's "Planet X" and was successful in 2 cases and at least partially successful in the other 2 in my "debunking". On the other hand, the one person who asked if I thought we really went to the moon remained unconvinced that we had even when I recounted being present when the first laser pulses were reflected from the Apollo 11 landing site.

Arguing with someone who is suffering from paranoia, has the effect of further entrenching the delusional thought process. And guess what? you end up, in their mind, being the bad guy/Government agent. it aint worth the effort.

Have you ever considered the possibility that they are really gubment stooges creating outlandish woo woo theories to discredit by association the genuine whistle blowers

I once had a co-worker who believed that all these conspiracy theories were made up in Area 51 (Well they have to have something to while away the hours since all the good stuff was shipped out to Denver )

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Mr Sticks, please see my last post on the thread about David Icke, you have won yourself a prize

__________________
"Ah go on Ted they have a spider baby"

"How do you know its a baby, does it gurgle or something"

"Er no, they keep it in a pram"

Are you refering to this post

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Nah, "genuine" whistle-blowers don't bother with unsubstantiated outlandish woo they have no chance of proving. I do believe the PTB covet their secrets and are not above some misdirection, but it has nothing to do with flying saucers in hanger bays, aliens in freezers, or joint US/reptilian underground bases.

I would like to derail this thread for just one quick moment to point out a milestone in etymology--the use of the phrase "pitching woo" has now shifted meaning, at least within this group. it used to mean . . . well, now that I really think about it, something not terribly different--it used to mean saying romantic things. our version is just attempting to seduce the intellect, not the heart.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Oh yeah, thats the one, were do you want it sent to..

__________________
"Ah go on Ted they have a spider baby"

"How do you know its a baby, does it gurgle or something"

"Er no, they keep it in a pram"

Sticks, old buddy, you're repeating yourself. SD syndrome maybe?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.