Space Cadet Will Hutton is sadly misinformed.

[Ludwig]

There's also a certain kind of mind that's attracted to conspiracy theories. You can poke holes in just about anything and make the story have apparent inconsistencies if you try hard enough.

It's known as "anomaly hunting" and is rampant among conspiracy loons. There was a chap on R4's Today programme this morning who spent a couple of years with the 9/11 "Truthers" and he was explaining that conspiracy theories seem to appeal primarily to men with a certain outlook on life. They tend to be technically minded, often with a survivalist/doomer outlook on life, and the "Truthers" tend to have a hard left political outlook. I also notice a tendency for them to overanalyse things and to aggrandise their own (or others') importance in the world.

This man was out to portray 9/11 Truthers in a particular light. He "knew" in advance that they were wrong about everything. That, my son, is confirmation bias. Your post displays exactly the same bias, only because it's you, it's not bias, it's the truth

Know thyself.

Of course people who listen to conspiracy theories have a certain temperament. They are likely to be naturally suspicious of human motives. My own experience and observation and reading have made it quite clear to me that one is right to be sceptical about people's motives, especially people in power.

As for the assertion that 9/11 Truthers tend to be "hard left" - that is bullshit and a clear attempt (given America's revulsion of socialism) to smear them.

[caspian]

My own experience and observation and reading have made it quite clear to me that one is right to be sceptical about people's motives, especially people in power.

If you're suspicious of everyone's motives then you've got a very cynical and misanthropic view of the world. Sure, distrust those in power (there are plenty of perfectly sensible reasons to do so), but distrust everyone? It's a wonder you can even step outside your own front door. Way paranoid.

As for the assertion that 9/11 Truthers tend to be "hard left" - that is bullshit and a clear attempt (given America's revulsion of socialism) to smear them.

Why is it bullshit? Given that many "Truthers" regard the Bush administration as being fascist slaughterers of their own people, they're hardly going to be card-carrying Republicans are they? I regard myself as being a lefty, but the "Truther" loons do the Left no favours at all.

[Ludwig]

My own experience and observation and reading have made it quite clear to me that one is right to be sceptical about people's motives, especially people in power.

If you're suspicious of everyone's motives then you've got a very cynical and misanthropic view of the world. Sure, distrust those in power (there are plenty of perfectly sensible reasons to do so), but distrust everyone? It's a wonder you can even step outside your own front door. Way paranoid.

I would expect no less of you than to misrepresent what I said.

I said I was sceptical of people's motives, not suspicious. The former means considering the various reasons people might have for behaving as they do. The latter means assuming from the start that their intentions are malign.

As for the assertion that 9/11 Truthers tend to be "hard left" - that is bullshit and a clear attempt (given America's revulsion of socialism) to smear them.

Why is it bullshit? Given that many "Truthers" regard the Bush administration as being fascist slaughterers of their own people, they're hardly going to be card-carrying Republicans are they? I regard myself as being a lefty, but the "Truther" loons do the Left no favours at all.

The 9/11 Truth movement was started mostly by families of 9/11 victims, who found the information given them by the US Government about what happened to their relatives sketchy, evasive and inconsistent.

Perhaps the best-known 9/11 Truther, Mike Ruppert, was originally a committed Republican.

You are so disgusted by and contemptuous of 9/11 loons that you have never listened to their arguments. It doesn't matter that many of their arguments haven't been refuted, or that they would be libellous if untrue.

What matters to you is the claim, not the arguments for it.

(To take what is for me the most graphic piece of evidence, WTC7. Firstly, its collapse, nay even its former existence, wasn't mentioned once in the 9/11 Comission Report. When, after a great deal of public pressure, a report into its collapse was released, the conclusion was We don't know why it collapsed. Now, I'm not demanding that you find this suspicious, but don't you even find it interesting?)

You clearly regard yourself as a supreme, scientifically-minded, objective rationalist - yet you start from conclusions, and decide from the conclusions whether the evidence is worth considering. Would you deny that this is true? And have you ever read the case for a 9/11 cover-up on anything other than debunking sites?

[Ludwig]

Ludwig - on the subject of Moon landings, I heard the same theories that they were fake. Common sense - that if they were fake, the Russians would have told the world(!)

A fair argument. Some have suggested that the US might have had some dirt on a similar project by the Russians, and that a deal was struck not to enter into a mutually damaging information war. A kind of intellectual MAD.

But still, it's a fair point. I just feel (or felt on reading the now-defunct sites) that some of the evidence for a hoax was overwhelming, and mysteries like the one you mention might remain mysteries. Russia might have had its reasons.

- and a very quick look at the huge conspiracy it would have involved, including EVERY radio station in the world(!) confirmed to me that the moon landings were real.

You shouldn't underestimate the fear of ridicule that plays on the minds of even the most objective journalists.

You have every right to doubt things, but at what point do you stop?

When there's no supporting evidence that convinces you. In the end we all make our own minds up as to what's convincing and what isn't.

If I were able to go back to the moon landing conspiracy sites that have disappeared, I might well change my mind. But as I indicated, I am not persuaded that the debunking sites are accurately representing the sceptics' evidence.

Elvis death? I remember reading a very interesting account of how he may have faked his own death - but frankly I assume he died of a overdose because if you go around hunting for small insconsistencies in official accounts, than you will go slowly mad.

The key phrase is "small inconsistencies". For me, most of the Apollo hoax evidence falls into this category, but not the "identical mountains" argument as originally presented (i.e. photos taken hundreds of miles apart, not just one or two miles).

[caspian]

Chambers Dictionary:

sceptic [noun] someone with a tendency to disbelieve or doubt the validity or substance of other situations, people, etc.

I'd say that my charaterisation of you as being suspicious of people's motives is commensurate with your statement that you are "sceptical about people's motives". Hardly a gross misrepresentation is it?

You clearly regard yourself as a supreme, scientifically-minded, objective rationalist

Supreme? Now who's misrepresenting? I'd like to think I'm scientifically minded (being that I'm a former research scientist) and a rationalist. I would hope that I don't reject things a priori, but I can spot bullshit pseudoscience when I see it. And I've also seen enough conspiracy theory purveyors and pseudoscience peddlers to know what their game is.

[kenneal - lagger]

I can believe that a few people involved in a criminal conspiracy, say the Kennedy murder or 9/11, would keep quiet for years because the consequences for them telling the truth would be dire. But for all of the thousands of people who would have been involved in a moon landing conspiracy to keep quiet for thirty years or more is just too much to believe. With no criminal liability involved someone would have sold a story to the papers by now.

[RenewableCandy]

For those who are getting confused, here's the BBC cut-out-and-keep guide to Conspiracy Theories.

And fwiw, I think the good Prof has a point.

The conspiracy theorists may get overexcited but they have a point, says Prof Andrew Kakabadse, co-author of new book Bilderberg People.

The group has genuine power that far outranks the World Economic Forum, which meets in Davos, he argues. And with no transparency, it is easy to see why people are worried about its influence.

"It's much smarter than conspiracy," says Prof Kakabadse. "This is moulding the way people think so that it seems like there's no alternative to what is happening."

and as if that's not enough...

McConnachie argues. "The ... explanation is more dangerous. That they are precisely right - they just over-egg the way they articulate it."

[PS_RalphW]

I generally avoid talking about 9/11.

Was it a conspiracy ? I don't know. - actually I do know that a lot of people conspired to blow up the world trade centre and succeeded. However, I have no idea if anyone in power in the US either helped facilitate it or deliberately let it happen by not reporting their knowledge of the attacks, etc. Such things have happened in the past, if it didn't happen on this occasion then it wasn't because of the moral qualities of the US leadership at the time.

I don't talk about it because it because we can never know the full truth of what happened. I am absolutely sure that there were cover-ups. There are always cover-ups, lies, omissions. People and organisations covering their own backs. Just look at Japan. You will never get that much truth out of the US, 10 years or 100 years after the event.

Talking about 9/11 simply gets you labelled a conspiracy nut, and that is not a risk worth taking. In the grand scheme of things there are more important things to talk about, and I need all the credibility I can muster when talking about those.

[Ludwig]

Chambers Dictionary:

sceptic [noun] someone with a tendency to disbelieve or doubt the validity or substance of other situations, people, etc.

I'd say that my charaterisation of you as being suspicious of people's motives is commensurate with your statement that you are "sceptical about people's motives". Hardly a gross misrepresentation is it?

Well firstly, and incidentally, that definition is illiterate, whether it's from Chambers or not. How can a person have "validity" or "substance"? Validity is something applicable to statements, not to objects or people. What is meant by "other"? It's rather sad that even our lexicographers now have so little concept of linguistic precision.

Anyhow I digress. "Sceptical" is a much more measured term than "suspicious". It doesn't have the same undertones of paranoia and subjectivity. I doubt that the lexicographer understands such nuances, but it is how the word is used.

You clearly regard yourself as a supreme, scientifically-minded, objective rationalist

Supreme? Now who's misrepresenting? I'd like to think I'm scientifically minded (being that I'm a former research scientist) and a rationalist. I would hope that I don't reject things a priori,

Well, you do.

but I can spot bullshit pseudoscience when I see it. And I've also seen enough conspiracy theory purveyors and pseudoscience peddlers to know what their game is.

Well you're clearly never going to change your mind about this, not least because after making such stident statements you'd look very foolish

[Ludwig]

I generally avoid talking about 9/11.

Was it a conspiracy ? I don't know. - actually I do know that a lot of people conspired to blow up the world trade centre and succeeded. However, I have no idea if anyone in power in the US either helped facilitate it or deliberately let it happen by not reporting their knowledge of the attacks, etc. Such things have happened in the past, if it didn't happen on this occasion then it wasn't because of the moral qualities of the US leadership at the time.

I don't talk about it because it because we can never know the full truth of what happened. I am absolutely sure that there were cover-ups. There are always cover-ups, lies, omissions. People and organisations covering their own backs. Just look at Japan. You will never get that much truth out of the US, 10 years or 100 years after the event.

Talking about 9/11 simply gets you labelled a conspiracy nut, and that is not a risk worth taking. In the grand scheme of things there are more important things to talk about, and I need all the credibility I can muster when talking about those.

Fair enough. I think there are many people who take the same approach as you Ralph. Nobody likes to be the object of ridicule, and if you have any kind of public standing, be it national or local, you have to put your credibility first. (Though that hasn't stopped some reckless souls, such as Michael Meacher.)

You're right, too, that there are more important things to talk about. I never start discussions about conspiracy theories, but if other people bring them up, I can't stop myself from piping up. The reasons are twofold. I like to justify my position, and not let those who deride it feel they've got the last word. It's pointless but it makes me feel better :\ Secondly, I do find these issues interesting, however unimportant they are in the greater scheme. I'm not a pillar of the community and I don't have much to lose by speaking up. I don't find it humiliating to be ridiculed. I just find it tiresome. I have enough confidence in my reasoning ability not to be made to feel stupid by people who think they're smarter than me.

That said, there are some opinions I don't voice very often in public, mainly because they are informed by personal experiences, and I don't have objective information to back them up. Except with people who've had similar experiences, I can't hope to be understood or taken seriously when I talk about them.

[RogueMale]

You can see equipment left behind on the moon during the Apollo missions with a high-powered telescope.

Dont suppose you have a link for that, I found lots of sites saying it was about to be proven, but none that said the VLT had actualy seen anything.

I'm with Ludwig here, I've seen several "conspiracy busting" shows, and not one answered any of my doubts, they simply built up strawmen and knocked them down.

Ships certainly went there and came back, I remain to be convinced they were manned when they did so.

Yep, me too.

It's amusing that one gets ridiculed not for saying, "I know the moon landings were faked", but merely for saying, "There are some inconsistencies in the official account which I feel have not, as yet, been convincingly explained."

There is a certain type of mind that cannot handle doubt. This type of mind typically makes for a good scientific technician, because its need for certainty makes it very good at collecting data. To this type of mind, there is no truth other than data. The idea that some of the data may never be available, and therefore that hypothesis must substitute for certainty indefinitely, disturbs it greatly.

As I mentioned in my other post, there are no longer any easy-to-find sites on this subject that aren't debunking sites - which by their nature can present the arguments in as ridiculous and selective a way as they like. I've seen several supposed "demolitions" of conspiracy theories that are literally lists of unqualified statements that "There is absolutely no evidence for this." It's particularly self-styled rationalists that are fall for these "arguments" every time.

If somebody "knows" they're free of confirmation bias, they can be made to believe anything. "I'm a rationalist, therefore all my beliefs are rational."

I don't believe the landings were faked, I merely have my doubts, and I am quite happy in the assumption that I will never know for sure.

There are always inconsistences, and loose ends, in official accounts of pretty much anything, and occasionally they do lie: e.g. it took a while for NASA to admit that Neil Armstrong flunked his "one small step" speech. There was no static, as originally claimed.

This page has all you need: http://www.forteantimes.com/features/ar ... /fake.html. The two links at the bottom of the page present the case for, and against, the moon landings being faked.

And what about the moon rocks? There's nothing like them on Earth, except the samples returned to earth by Soviet unmanned lunar probes.

[JohnB]

And what about the moon rocks? There's nothing like them on Earth, except the samples returned to earth by Soviet unmanned lunar probes.

Moon rocks? Isn't the moon made of cheese?

[JavaScriptDonkey]

It's a question of which position is more likely to be true.

Did NASA and it staff and contractors conspire to fake the moon landings or did they just get on with it and actually go there?

To me it seems the entire Apollo mission run of early low orbit craft, unmanned moon shots and the eventual landing of 12 astronauts on the surface (including the Apollo 13 nightmare) is a technical marvel and formed the basis of the careers of countless engineers and scientists. To suggest that the USGovt faked it on the basis of an odd photo and that everyone involved was duped seems to me to be a madness.

On the plus side I do suspect that there might be a small 9/11 conspiracy but only insofar as to cover up incompetence in the White House.

[Ludwig]

This page has all you need: http://www.forteantimes.com/features/ar ... /fake.html. The two links at the bottom of the page present the case for, and against, the moon landings being faked.

I will check it out, assuming the links weren't planted by the CIA...

And what about the moon rocks? There's nothing like them on Earth, except the samples returned to earth by Soviet unmanned lunar probes.

I know of no reason to doubt that we sent something to the moon during the Apollo missions. I'm just not 100% sure about the men. As I said, I would like to go back to the pages I read a couple of years ago and see if they still convince me, but they've all disappeared.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

As I said, I would like to go back to the pages I read a couple of years ago and see if they still convince me, but they've all disappeared.

Google has a search feature enabling you to select a date range for your results and so filter out modern hits.

Perhaps you saw the facts-about site from 2004?

Or maybe the interstingly named bibliotecapleyades from 1999?