The idea that the whole ‘we did not land on the moon thing’ was itself a hoax is one I’d not read before even though in my ‘gut’ had had a kind of notion that it must have been.
I have a couple of problems with conspiracy theories and yes I could be putting ‘good conspiracy theories’ in with the ‘bad ones’ (even though I’m not sure what constitutes a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ conspiracy).
We all know Governments and the Media only present or foreground a single ‘facet’ of the truth.
In short, ‘they’ lie.
By extension, conspiracy theorists do the exact same thing.
They, however, often call themselves ‘truther’ and rally under the banner of some kind of ‘truth movement’.
My second problem with conspiracies is that many of them dismiss human ingenuity and human tragedy with equal contempt. Now before I get angry comments from some, I readily admit that Governments can do exactly the same thing. But, that does not make it right.
The level of trust we, as people, have in our leaders is diminishing every day. We see duplicity, arrogance, ignorance and prejudice modelled by those elected into power or by those who have simply taken it.
Writers and Journalists are amongst those in a position to challenge opinion and the bias that is masquerading as truth.
They can ask the difficult questions, explore and expose those who seek to spread mis-information; however, their evidence, their arguments and their rhetoric also needs scrutiny.
Misquoting Samuel Johnson, personal (anecdotal) opinion is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Darryn’s article offers some insights into the motivation for the collator of the ‘evidence’ of the Moon Hoax and so serves to remind us that all writers have some kind of agenda.
Most conspiracy theory stems from an agenda, a sensible one perhaps, which suggests we shouldn’t just trust those in power.
If leaders can’t be trusted, then neither can the establishment.
Experts in any field arise from within the establishment, so by default, they can not be trusted.
If the only person I trust is myself (and those who agree with me), then I can subscribe to any view of the world I choose. I can cherry-pick evidence, ask only the comfortable questions which reinforce my perspectives.
I eschew the frame works of logic, critical thinking and ‘expert opinion’ since they are the tools of the system.
I can collapse into a world of self-referential bias and self re-defining perceptions.
I know the truth and what I say is true.
I trust no ideas outside of my circle of acolytes.
Where there is no trust there is only uncertainty.
My uncertainty means that I become insecure when presented with any challenge to my perception of the truth; and that truth rejects counter-argument, other opinion and contrasting evidence.
Going back to the Moon Landing Hoax, despite being given prime time TV/Documentary coverage where ‘evidence’ for the hoax has been explored and explained, the ‘believer’ remains unconvinced.
That is, of course, their choice.
What remains, however, is the feeling that science and ‘evidence’ is more about ‘popularity’ than reason; more about ‘quantity’ rather than ‘quality’; more about the volume of voice rather than the stillness of wisdom.
Apologies, I went off at a bit of a tangent there.
I only wanted to give a ‘thumbs-up’ to Darryn and his interesting article.
PS, although I believe we went to the Moon and, it was an almost ‘unbelievable’ thing, I am open to hearing the best evidence the ‘hoaxers’ can offer.
My opinions are true at the moment I speak them, my personal (consistent) values are that I can and will allow my truths to evolve as and when new evidence is presented to be considered.