Because the CTs have no proof to “out” the conspiracy. The Astronauts that “allegedly” went into space and to the moon, as well as the senior government and NASA officials that engineered the moon-landing coverup, could.
So the CTs can blab their heads off, and the proverbial “They” don’t care; after all who’s going to believe some loony CT without a shred of proof for any of his theories?
The point is, they think they have proof and they think the government is out to silence them. They certainly don’t think they are some loony, so pointing it out may in fact increase their paranoia and hopefully, just make them shut the fuck up.
Or push them over the edge into armed/violent action. Like blowing up government buildings in, say, Oklahoma City.
Yeah, I am sure Tim McVeigh was pushed over the edge by a sarcastic comment from a random stranger…
You’re right; bad reference. My point being (in response to OtakuLoki originally) is that the CTs are not all paranoid loons who feel the governemnt will try to silence them permanently from espousing their conspiracies.
Most CTs that I’ve met know that they have very little (if anything) in the way of evidence, or proof even, of the vast conspiracy. The CTs know that “They,” being The-Powers-That-Be, have sufficiently covered their tracks, doctored or detroyed documents, destroyed evidence, intimidated/bought off witnesses, eliminated stubborn hold-outs, etc., in such a way that The Truth will likely never be known.
Being that they (CTs) have no evidence, they are safe. “They,” TPTB, don’t worry about the CTs, no matted how closely their theories come to The Truth. Without proof, it’s all just hot air.
They are, as a group (the “group” being those that I have met), paranoid; but it’s a sort of unfocused paranoia, not generally centered on the self.
The truly mentally unstable and paranoid types don’t last long in open society; they’re the ones who may believe Soccer Mom and her three kids in the typical suburban mini-van is a CIA operative hot on his trail. These people usually manifiest anti-social behavior in enough differet ways that they are identified and, usually, treated in some manner or another.
Hoagland was entertaining until he came out and said that NASA deliberately killed the crew of the Columbia. Uh, no, Dick, they didn’t. There’s too few shuttles as it is, and NASA’s not going to blow one up, just because it’s part of some arcane ritual. Sorry to disappoint you.
You, OTOH, are paying for this crap. If you’re on federal student loans or the GI Bill, I, and every other US taxpayer are paying for this crap as well. This is certainly not, something I want my taxes underwriting. Nor does anyone else with a brain. You need to document him discussing such tomfoolery as fact in front of the class. If you can’t trust him to get his facts straight on things that are indisputably facts, then how can you trust him on anything else?
fnord
Look, we’ve been through this many times before, and the accepted answer is that NASA faked the Moon landings by actually sending men to the Moon because optical effects were too primitive in 1969 to make the ten inch models of the Eagle and the astronauts look real. Besides, they had a lot of problem scrubbing the marionette wires off of the films because of a union walkout of film processing technicians. End of story.
Today, however, it’s all done with RenderMan Pro and PowerPoint. It’s a good thing, too, 'cause I don’t think that whole Ares rocket system is really going to pan out for NASA.
Stranger
I hate to break it to you, but back then, most of those books were probably correct in asserting that we had never landed on the moon. [/joke]
I’m sorry, I can’t get behind this. I believe bad ideas should die natural deaths: they should be rejected after rational examination. They should not be quashed from above. Most good ideas are initially viewed as bad ideas until they gather enough support. Nothing should be summarily rejected just because it isn’t dogmatic.
There is no harm in letting nutcases teach their conspiracy theories to free-thinking adults.
You’re assuming that adults will actually think about this stuff, rather than simply swallowing it whole cloth. I’ll note that in recent years, simply accepting nutcase ideas have caused a number of problems in the world. From people in former Soviet controlled countries losing their pensions because of scams, to the internet and housing bubbles, to name but a few.
Yes, many times a new scientific theory (such as evolution or continental drift) gets attacked by the “old guard,” but that’s supposed to happen. Critical examination is what science is all about.
I suppose you’re right: color me a bright-eyed optomist.
But the problem (and I guess it’s unavoidable) is the question of when do we call the thought police, and in whose hands that decision belongs. Should it be the university administrators who decide which bad ideas are bad “enough” that teachers who teach them get fired? Or should (university) teaching be a self-regulating profession? Who are we to say that the people debunking the moon-hoaxers aren’t just the “old guard”?[sup]1[/sup]
Any move by the administration to remove bad ideas from circulation is an insult to the students. But perhaps you’re right: perhaps university students deserve to be insulted.
[sup]1[/sup] This is just an example. I agree that the moon hoaxers are complete wackos.
If there were some valid debate about the matter, like say, is currently going on between those who support dark matter and those who support “tweaking” current theories of gravity, then there’s no harm in letting the ideas be hashed about. However, when you’re talking about something that not only is there no evidence, but can be no evidence, then the prof deserves to be tossed out on his ear.
Tell your professor that the moon doesn’t even exist.
Tell him that if he believes otherwise and can prove it then he can claim a prize of $100,000.
http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm
see what he thinks about that.
I have to say, that drew more smiles from me apropos of the Young Earth debate, but it’s certainly a gem. Bookmarked.
That reminds me of the James Randi prize!
<duck!>
Oh, I know that. It’s just that I’ve chosen to accept defeat with CTs: I’m not going to be able to convince them that their ‘truth’ is idiocy. With that background, I’m no longer concerned about convincing them, nor listening politely to their blather. If I can use their own warped view of reality to get them to shut up to me about their pet theories, I will count that as more of a victory than one will often be able to win against a CT.
It’s by no means a tactic that I imagine would work 100% or even 50% of the time. But even if it works once, it’s benefitted me.
Reminds me of a guy I used to work with. Brilliant electrical engineer and follower of Velikovsky. :rolleyes:
Intelligence and education in one area do not automatically translate to understanding in all areas.
While perusing his Wiki page, I see Aldrin actually legally changed his first name from “Edwin” to “Buzz”. How cool is that? My respect for him just climbed another notch. I’d actually let him punch me and thank him for the privilege.
who?
I don’t like where this is going…