3 ms·

The most glaring problem is that it simply doesn't work. The only people who take conspiracy videos seriously, are people who have already decided they don't l

by soneil 9y ago

The most glaring problem is that it simply doesn't work. The only people who take conspiracy videos seriously, are people who have already decided they don't like the truth, and either want someone to agree with them, or want someone to invent the details/logic so they don't have to. You're not dealing with people who aren't aware of the moon landings. You're dealing with people who have already chosen, for whatever reason, not to believe it. Have you ever won an argument about a moon hoaxer with "yes, they did", or against a flat-earther with "no, it's round"? Embedding wiki summaries into youtube is simply taking the argument that never, ever works, and automating it. "You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into."

ebcode 9y ago
On the contrary, I reasoned myself into believing the moon landing was a hoax, and I have yet to be presented with acceptable evidence that contradicts my theory. Obviously, I have stricter criteria for "evidence" than what the general public accepts, but I nevertheless consider myself a rational person with excellent reasoning behind my theory. And I am willing to consider fresh evidence, if such were presented to me.
- drewmate 9y ago
  Could you elaborate? Do you believe all moon landings were fake, or just some? What about unmanned landings?
  - ebcode 9y ago
    I do believe that China's unmanned lander is real. I don't believe that the US manned landings were real. Here is more elaboration than I had planned: I came to the conclusion that the landings were faked by my own reasoning. I grew up believing they were real, and only changed my mind in my 20s, after learning more about cosmic rays. Cosmic Rays weren't even on the radar for the Apollo missions; US states had only just begun banning shoe-fitting fluoroscopes in the 60s. That was the first inkling I had that something was suspect. Later I learned about Stanley Kubrick's alleged involvement in the documentary film, "Room 237". Every other recorded major scientific advance has been followed by more observed results in the same area. Yet the official story is that astronauts drove around in moon buggies and played golf on the moon in the 1970s. We just haven't been back because ... there's no reason to go back? Is it not funny that there was a huge reason to get to the moon in the 60s and 70s, but once we got there that reason just vanished? No, the official story is to me simply not plausible, whereas the alternative makes a ton of sense. The US had every intention of going, but the task itself was simply too difficult. Thankfully, existing trick camera technology, as evidenced in science fiction movies of the time, made the hoax appear entirely believable (to a gullible public). The last straw for me was around 2010, when I read one of Buzz Aldrin's accounts of the moon landing in "The Week"[0], and I thought, "wait a minute, I've heard that story before", and sure enough, went and found approximately the exact same story of the "last-minute, running out of fuel, manual take-over moon landing" in a novel by Heinlein called "Rocket Ship Galileo"[1]. I would encourage anyone interested to compare the landing story told by Aldrin with the landing story told by Heinlein and judge for themselves whether or not the official story is what actually happened in reality[2], and not just a really great (and wonderfully written, I might add) piece of sci-fi. [0] https://theweek.com/articles/503621/last-word-eagle-landedbarely https://theweek.com/articles/503621/last-word-eagle-landedba... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Ship_Galileo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Ship_Galileo [2] I also believe in an objective reality, where things either did or did not happen.
smoe 9y ago
While I think what you say is often true, there is still room for informing people not fully into it. When I was around 14 I got emersed into various ufo theories and all sort of allegedly "mysterious" things. This all broke down once Wikipedia came around. I went there to learn more about the things I have read, not disprove it. It just turned out that the explanations were way more reasonable in pretty much all cases. Similarly, I often meet people that just binge watched some YouTube videos and are intrigued by then, not completely convinced. Personally I would like if YouTube included Wikipedia articles in every video as a general service, not just focused on conspiracy theories. There is plenty of incorrectness in other videos as well.
jMyles 9y ago
Surely you can acknowledge that some conspiracies, including those involving high-level state actors, have occurred? Why do you pigeonhole all conspiracies in such a way?
- api 9y ago
  It's a false equivalence argument used to discredit all investigative journalism. Any allegation of anything shady is instantly compared to Moon hoax and shape shifting reptile baloney.
- soneil 9y ago
  I'll admit, I homed in on the moon hoax because that's what the screenshots in the article show. But I am struggling to come up with any valid conspiracies which were unravelled on youtube, or disproven on wikipedia. Suffice to say youtube is not famed for its investigative journalism. That's not what nutjobs are soaking up. I was watching a show that was profiling flat-eathers, and one lady made a comment that really stood out to me. "So I did my own research - I watched four hours of videos on youtube." This isn't investigative journalism. This isn't classified leaks. It's monetising the gullible.
  - jMyles 9y ago
    So, it happens that I have been indulging myself in watching flat earth videos on Youtube for the past few days. And I'm astonished that anybody can watch these and come to the belief that they're accurate. For example, no video explains the simple matter of how, in a "flat earth" model, seasons can occur without the sun traveling at different speeds across the sky through the year. Or how retrograde motion can be observed. These are obvious, glaring flaws. On the other hand, I have found that there is a wealth of good information about the JFK assassination (although some whacky fringe bullshit too). In this case, I do think that the "establishment" narrative (if it's even reasonable to call the "lone nut" theory that anymore) is demonstrably false, and that Youtube provides good resources for showing it. In other words: if you conclude, as I do, that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy but that the earth is not flat, then I think that the resources on Youtube does a good job of buttressing reasonable study on these matters.

by soneil 9y ago

ebcode 9y ago

On the contrary, I reasoned myself into believing the moon landing was a hoax, and I have yet to be presented with acceptable evidence that contradicts my theory. Obviously, I have stricter criteria for "evidence" than what the general public accepts, but I nevertheless consider myself a rational person with excellent reasoning behind my theory. And I am willing to consider fresh evidence, if such were presented to me.

drewmate 9y ago
Could you elaborate? Do you believe all moon landings were fake, or just some? What about unmanned landings?
- ebcode 9y ago
  I do believe that China's unmanned lander is real. I don't believe that the US manned landings were real. Here is more elaboration than I had planned: I came to the conclusion that the landings were faked by my own reasoning. I grew up believing they were real, and only changed my mind in my 20s, after learning more about cosmic rays. Cosmic Rays weren't even on the radar for the Apollo missions; US states had only just begun banning shoe-fitting fluoroscopes in the 60s. That was the first inkling I had that something was suspect. Later I learned about Stanley Kubrick's alleged involvement in the documentary film, "Room 237". Every other recorded major scientific advance has been followed by more observed results in the same area. Yet the official story is that astronauts drove around in moon buggies and played golf on the moon in the 1970s. We just haven't been back because ... there's no reason to go back? Is it not funny that there was a huge reason to get to the moon in the 60s and 70s, but once we got there that reason just vanished? No, the official story is to me simply not plausible, whereas the alternative makes a ton of sense. The US had every intention of going, but the task itself was simply too difficult. Thankfully, existing trick camera technology, as evidenced in science fiction movies of the time, made the hoax appear entirely believable (to a gullible public). The last straw for me was around 2010, when I read one of Buzz Aldrin's accounts of the moon landing in "The Week"[0], and I thought, "wait a minute, I've heard that story before", and sure enough, went and found approximately the exact same story of the "last-minute, running out of fuel, manual take-over moon landing" in a novel by Heinlein called "Rocket Ship Galileo"[1]. I would encourage anyone interested to compare the landing story told by Aldrin with the landing story told by Heinlein and judge for themselves whether or not the official story is what actually happened in reality[2], and not just a really great (and wonderfully written, I might add) piece of sci-fi. [0] https://theweek.com/articles/503621/last-word-eagle-landedbarely https://theweek.com/articles/503621/last-word-eagle-landedba... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Ship_Galileo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Ship_Galileo [2] I also believe in an objective reality, where things either did or did not happen.

smoe 9y ago

While I think what you say is often true, there is still room for informing people not fully into it. When I was around 14 I got emersed into various ufo theories and all sort of allegedly "mysterious" things. This all broke down once Wikipedia came around. I went there to learn more about the things I have read, not disprove it. It just turned out that the explanations were way more reasonable in pretty much all cases. Similarly, I often meet people that just binge watched some YouTube videos and are intrigued by then, not completely convinced. Personally I would like if YouTube included Wikipedia articles in every video as a general service, not just focused on conspiracy theories. There is plenty of incorrectness in other videos as well.

jMyles 9y ago

Surely you can acknowledge that some conspiracies, including those involving high-level state actors, have occurred? Why do you pigeonhole all conspiracies in such a way?

api 9y ago
It's a false equivalence argument used to discredit all investigative journalism. Any allegation of anything shady is instantly compared to Moon hoax and shape shifting reptile baloney.
soneil 9y ago
I'll admit, I homed in on the moon hoax because that's what the screenshots in the article show. But I am struggling to come up with any valid conspiracies which were unravelled on youtube, or disproven on wikipedia. Suffice to say youtube is not famed for its investigative journalism. That's not what nutjobs are soaking up. I was watching a show that was profiling flat-eathers, and one lady made a comment that really stood out to me. "So I did my own research - I watched four hours of videos on youtube." This isn't investigative journalism. This isn't classified leaks. It's monetising the gullible.
- jMyles 9y ago
  So, it happens that I have been indulging myself in watching flat earth videos on Youtube for the past few days. And I'm astonished that anybody can watch these and come to the belief that they're accurate. For example, no video explains the simple matter of how, in a "flat earth" model, seasons can occur without the sun traveling at different speeds across the sky through the year. Or how retrograde motion can be observed. These are obvious, glaring flaws. On the other hand, I have found that there is a wealth of good information about the JFK assassination (although some whacky fringe bullshit too). In this case, I do think that the "establishment" narrative (if it's even reasonable to call the "lone nut" theory that anymore) is demonstrably false, and that Youtube provides good resources for showing it. In other words: if you conclude, as I do, that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy but that the earth is not flat, then I think that the resources on Youtube does a good job of buttressing reasonable study on these matters.