Author Topic: The information war is real, and we’re losing it  (Read 5816 times)

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« on: September 07, 2017, 02:05:54 PM »
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/uw-professor-the-information-war-is-real-and-were-losing-it/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=article_left_1.1

Quote
“Your brain tells you ‘Hey, I got this from three different sources,’ ” she says. “But you don’t realize it all traces back to the same place, and might have even reached you via bots posing as real people. If we think of this as a virus, I wouldn’t know how to vaccinate for it.”

Starbird says she’s concluded, provocatively, that we may be headed toward “the menace of unreality — which is that nobody believes anything anymore.”
There really is an information war for your mind. And we’re losing it.

Quote
The true common denominator, she found, is anti-globalism — deep suspicion of free trade, multinational business and global institutions.
“To be antiglobalist often included being anti-mainstream media, anti-immigration, anti-science, anti-U.S. government, and anti-European Union,”
Much of it was strangely pro-Russian, too — perhaps due to Russian twitter bots that bombarded social channels during the presidential campaign

Very disturbing. How do we protect ourselves from disinformation in the age of information?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2017, 02:25:07 PM »
What a surprise, when people are lied to repeatedly they get suspicious, and doubly so when they know they're being screwed over in various ways.

As to the war of information, that's been going on for a century. It's only now that we're seeing backlash because different lines of communication are open (not only for the better).

I will note that the article seems to suggest a mysteriously right-wing bent to almost all of the topics involved, which right away suggests to me one of two things: they're not talking about the population at large, or if they are, they're already sifting for specific kinds of individual beliefs, in which case it's confirmation bias city.

The solution to the information war could only be the elimination of conflicts of interest. Those are at the core of most serious problems. A good start would be eliminating money from politics, followed by altering the economics of what incentivizes media organizations. Ecosystem shift doesn't have to be forced; close the key doors and put better incentives in place and the shift happens automatically.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2017, 02:42:17 PM »
It's not mysteriously right-wing. The Right has had more of an interest in pushing anti-government conspiracy theories over the last eight years. The continuing narrative of the "Deep State" being opposed to Trump hasn't given the Left much reason to push a similar narrative. So left-wing theories focus on corporations like Monsanto and such which hasn't really gotten any support from the mainstream, so they aren't as prominent.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2017, 05:12:19 PM »
It would be great to have a debate that doesn’t revert to right verses left.  Which is exactly what such attacks on information are intended to create. 

My reading of the article was that the observation was not a political right or left thing but an war on globalism and in my opinion democracy.
Quote
It isn’t a traditional left-right political axis, she found. There are right-wing sites like... and left-wing sensationalizes... The true common denominator, she found, is anti-globalism

The attracts are deliberate and originate from sources that don’t care about right or left, right or wrong, truth or lies though the disinformation may appeal to the right or left agendas. The intent to destabilize… rather nihilist and anarchistic... then right or left and to my way of thinking could only benefit political dictatorship. 

Quote
As to the war of information, that's been going on for a century.
Yes, disinformation has always been a tool of politics and control. However, the incredible changes to Communication technology in the last 10 years is a game changer and to dismiss it as having always been going on is ignorant. In the distant past information took mouths to disseminate and act on or react to.  In the age of Radio and TV information took days to disseminate and was in the hands of a few. We do not know how the almost instant and continuous access to information and disinformation is impacting society and democracy. (other then the increase likelihood of a reaction rather to information then a response.)

That there is evidence of intent to destabilise should be a concern to all of us, right or life, green or blue. 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2017, 10:13:18 PM »
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/uw-professor-the-information-war-is-real-and-were-losing-it/?
Quote
The true common denominator, she found, is anti-globalism — deep suspicion of free trade, multinational business and global institutions.
“To be antiglobalist often included being anti-mainstream media, anti-immigration, anti-science, anti-U.S. government, and anti-European Union,”
Much of it was strangely pro-Russian, too — perhaps due to Russian twitter bots that bombarded social channels during the presidential campaign

Very disturbing. How do we protect ourselves from disinformation in the age of information?

The funny thing is the overly broad nature of this. "Anti-globalist" is actually more left-wing than right wing. But I guess some of that depends on how exactly you want to define "globalist."

Because the long-standing "right wing" thing has been for free and unrestricted trade, which opens doors for Globe spanning corporations, and a slew of other things. Which is something the left-wing tends to violently protest often.

Then there is the "left wing" variant which seems to be efforts to move more towards a "one (unified) world government" which "the right-wing" in turn tends to balk at, if for no other reason than simply looking at the current composition of the United Nations. Sure it may be technically majority democratic forms of governance, but the reality is often wildly different. Unless you're REALLY going to take the name of "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea" at face value and claim that North Korea is a democratic government simply because it self-identifies as such.  ::)

Ditto for China, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Russia, Turkey, etc.

That doesn't even get into nations like Saudi Arabia or Myanmar to name a couple.

In the current media climate, I'm not exactly sure what it even means to be "anti-MainStreamMedia" anymore.

Anti-immigration also likely falls prey to an "overly broad net" being cast. I'm against illegal immigration, and think the legal immigration process needs some serious reform. There are people here illegally that never should have been placed in the position of "making that choice." While there are abuses of the legal immigration system by corporations in an effort to manipulate wages in certain industries. Almost guaranteed that the person in question would just lump many of us in here as simply "anti-immigration."

Which then brings us to "anti-science"  where if her cliff-notes summary is any indication, further demonstrates why people are becoming increasingly dubious about claims being made by "researchers" in a wide range of fields. The "information war" has been ongoing for decades now, it started with the Tobacco Industry funding studies to "prove" smoking wasn't harmful, and has continued on the present day. Oil and Natural Gas companies financing studies into "the dangers on Nuclear Power" (and spawning Greenpeace among other things), to Women's Lib types getting "gender studies" programs implemented in leading colleges. From there it has simply been an ever expanding snowball of agenda based special interests all finding their own groups of "scientists" to churn out white papers to support their cause.

So am I "anti-Science" to distrust a report on the health effects of smoking pushed by Phillip-Morris? Or reports on the impacts of CO2 Emissions on global temperatures from Exon-Mobile? How about one from Greenpeace instead?

Anti-US-government is a time honored thing in the United States. That is hardly a "new thing" in a lot of respects, it's pretty much ingrained into the cultural DNA that you're not supposed to trust Government when that government's seat of power is "far away" and disconnected from your own daily life.

Anti-EU loops back to the anti-globalist thing, paired with the previous discussion on immigration, although the immigration issue is more complicated in that specific case, as those immigrants are overwhelmingly legal ones. Unlike what's going on in the US.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2017, 11:20:41 AM »
The remark about globalisation was speculation.
The study was on how social networks to help people respond to disasters. What she found was intentional disinformation being spread within minutes of the tragedy being reported.  The intent of such intentional disinformation was speculative and troubling.
The concern was not a left or right political agenda – though both the right and left will use such disinformation for there agenda which is troubling.

The art of discernment and debate is lost and we are all playing the fool

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2017, 11:49:51 AM »
The art of discernment and debate is lost and we are all playing the fool

Are you sure that's the moral? I think it's that once blindly accepting what you're told (the norm during the 20th century) is rejected one begins to realize just how difficult discernment really is in the face of disinformation. It is extremely hard to be sure about things! And people are more willing to just go with something than to be extremely rigorous or patiently accept that they just can't know. At that point bias will come into effect and color which view you'll end up going with when the data is just incomplete. It's a very difficult time to be sure about current events, although a very good time in terms of knowing various factoids like animal mating habits and prices for things.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2017, 12:59:01 PM »
It's certainly a real issue, but the write up exposes some biases that should be considered.

First check this out:

Quote
It happens after every mass shooting or attack. If you search for “false flag” and “Westminster,” you’ll find thousands of results theorizing that last week’s attack outside British Parliament was staged (presumably to bring down Brexit, which makes no sense, but making sense is not a prerequisite).

"False flag" does not mean staged.  Staged is a conspiracy concept that implies the event never happened. It's instantly discredited by most people (think about the claim that the moon landing was staged).  False flag on the other hand means a real event was perpetrated by people who's motives are the opposite of what you would suspect (a pro-choice person shooting at an abortion doctor to tar the pro-life movement for example). 

Given the increasing sophistication of media manipulation and the power of media impact, one would expect that false flag operations will increase in frequency whereas staged events would be harder to carry out.  Why link the two?  The intent seems to be to discredit by implication investigation of false flag events.

Or with this quote (that you guys cited already):

Quote
The true common denominator, she found, is anti-globalism — deep suspicion of free trade, multinational business and global institutions.

"To be antiglobalist often included being anti-mainstream media, anti-immigration, anti-science, anti-U.S. government, and anti-European Union,” Starbird says.

There is some truth to anti-globalism being at the root, with anti-free trade/business being the left manifestation of it, while anti-global institutions/government is more the right manifestation (though there are exceptions in both cases).

But consider the linking of "anti-science" in there.  That's a left talking point, not real position.  The evidence of it is not going to be in a denial of science in general, but rather in the denial of certain scientific positions.  Those positions are going to be those which are connected to the anti-globalist agenda.  Climate change is a perfect example.  It is not anti-science to be opposed to the global "solutions" to climate change.  It's not anti-science to reject that climate science has offered sufficient proof.  It's almost certain, however, that opposition to global policies on climate change are listed as "anti-science," when in reality they are just a different head on the anti-globalism agenda.

For a less politically charged example, there has been a lot of "conspiracy" style talk about whether a plane crash could really have had the result of taking down the Twin Towers in the manner they fell without help.  I don't think it's anti-science agenda that drives those discussions, it's an opposition to trusting the government's explanation about what happened, when there are scientific and engineering possibilities that imply it wasn't the expected result.  It's almost more science, not less, it just rejects Occam's razor (which if the government is manipulating events is a dangerous assumption to make as they will always provide a "simple" solution for the public to see).

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2017, 01:55:57 PM »
Conspiracy theories invariably come down "to screw the evidence what I believe is true is true." That's inherently anti-science.

It's one thing to believe there was something odd about how the towers fell, it's another thing to believe there were secret explosives or magic thermite or whatever Jones and his ilk are flogging this year.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2017, 02:01:45 PM »
Conspiracy theories invariably come down "to screw the evidence what I believe is true is true." That's inherently anti-science.

Are...you sure you know what science is? I don't think it is what you think it is.

Quote
It's one thing to believe there was something odd about how the towers fell, it's another thing to believe there were secret explosives or magic thermite or whatever Jones and his ilk are flogging this year.

I see. So the only plausible options are "believe what you're told" or else "you're crazy"?

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2017, 02:10:01 PM »
What do you think I'm saying science is? I don't see how rejection of evidence (especially wholesale rejection of all evidence) is anything but anti-science.

The options are to believe what you're told (because no one can be an expert in everything) or look into the evidence yourself and come to your own conclusions. What isn't an option, if you're interested in truth or accuracy, is inventing your own evidence or other kinds of fantastical thinking.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2017, 02:45:37 PM »
What do you think I'm saying science is? I don't see how rejection of evidence (especially wholesale rejection of all evidence) is anything but anti-science.

I'm not sure what you're saying science is. There was such a thing as looking at evidence and making decisions prior to the existence of science as we know it. Science =/= knowledge, and certainly also =/= reason. It is a tool within the realm of reasoning for testing physical processes. Being bad at inspecting evidence has nothing to do with science, for or against; it just means a person isn't thinking logically. Similarly, being skeptical about human claims regading evidence also has nothing to do with skepticism that there are such things as physical facts or laws. Again, they have nothing to do with each other. Being a conspiracy theorist means you think people are liars, not that there are no such things as facts. It can mean rejecting facts as presented by an interested party, which is something else. Anyone who's heard climate study claims made by oil companies or health claims made by tobacco companies  knows what it means to doubt a claim made within the context of a conflict of interest. That's the point, that government or private companies can have a conflict of interest in being truthful with the public. It's got nothing to do with rejection of science or scientism, which is a different topic that's worth exploring but is unrelated to conspiracy theories.

Quote
The options are to believe what you're told (because no one can be an expert in everything) or look into the evidence yourself and come to your own conclusions. What isn't an option, if you're interested in truth or accuracy, is inventing your own evidence or other kinds of fantastical thinking.

What's the point of a circular argument such as this? "Conspiracy theories use invented evidence therefore they are false" is certainly a consistent statement, but isn't of much use beyond stating the tautology that "invented evidence is invented." Some theories are probably a huge stretch or outright mistaken about what the facts are, and others are no doubt right about some things and wrong when they make educated guesses about others. Since it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are conspiracies to commit crimes or lie to people, it seems far more fantastical to suggest that this can't be a plausible explanation of an event.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #12 on: September 08, 2017, 03:53:28 PM »
The thing is the only way to stay a conspiracy theorist is to reject evidence. Not just erroneously believing the evidence is bad after careful review or that you've been lied to or otherwise deceived. Sooner or later a conspiracy theory comes up against good solid evidence that disproves it. If it doesn't, it's not a conspiracy theory; it's just a conspiracy. There is no way to maintain a belief in 9/11, Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon or any other sort of trutherism without rejecting evidence wholesale.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2017, 04:31:48 PM »
Well, take the Kennedy assassination for instance. Where is the 'good solid evidence' that proves there was only one shooter, who was a mad dog killer, and that it was not a coordinated effort? There isn't any, but there are lots of plot holes in the official narrative. It doesn't require stating a definitive alternate narrative with certainly to suspect a conspiracy there, and so any theory one posits or even entertains is a conspiracy theory. Now the term "conspiracy theorist" could technically apply to anyone who has any theory of this sort, but seems more to imply a person who regularly prefers to think in this way rather than accepting stories as given. So it may imply someone along a spectrum of skepticism, sure, but your idea that entertaining such theories automatically means you're anti-science is peculiar. Until the theory is proven with some records or smoking gun it has to remain a theory. What you are calling "just a conspiracy" can only be applied to cases that have been slam-dunk solved, and that doesn't happen very often for obvious reasons.

Your statement that "sooner or later a conspiracy theory comes up against good solid evidence that disproves it" is demonstrably false, even false by definition. What happens usually is that no strong evidence is forthcoming and a balance of soft evidence must be weighed. Sometimes hard evidence may be brought forward to invalidate a theory, and sometimes a theory will be all but demonstrated, which is far different from saying that everyone will accept it. Rarely will such a theory be accepted even in the fact of great evidence, because the cognitive dissonance of knowing that terrible things happen and you can do nothing about it isn't something most people want to live with.

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2017, 10:23:18 PM »
Fenring, your position amounts to an obstinate know-nothingism whereby you've moved the standards for accepting something as "almost certainly true" so far afield of where most reasonable persons would place it that you can essentially do nothing but claim "you can't prove that" about accepted narratives in public while privately believing things that are way more unlikely. It's basically like a mental motte and bailey whereby you subject mainstream narratives to intense scrutiny while giving undue weight to mere possibilities.

Many things I've heard you and others propose as 'alternative' narratives fail the basic test of requiring too many people being silent for too long a time.

http://www.popsci.com/how-many-minions-can-you-have-before-your-conspiracy-fails
« Last Edit: September 08, 2017, 10:32:32 PM by JoshCrow »

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #15 on: September 09, 2017, 01:23:30 PM »
Fenring, there's a difference between entertaining theories and believing them. It's not anti-science to wonder about 9/11 after watching a few YouTube videos. It's anti-science to continue believing the YouTube videos after looking at the evidence.

Fenring, your position amounts to an obstinate know-nothingism whereby you've moved the standards for accepting something as "almost certainly true" so far afield of where most reasonable persons would place it that you can essentially do nothing but claim "you can't prove that" about accepted narratives in public while privately believing things that are way more unlikely. It's basically like a mental motte and bailey whereby you subject mainstream narratives to intense scrutiny while giving undue weight to mere possibilities.

Many things I've heard you and others propose as 'alternative' narratives fail the basic test of requiring too many people being silent for too long a time.

http://www.popsci.com/how-many-minions-can-you-have-before-your-conspiracy-fails

Interesting you mention possibilities. A common tactic of conspiracy theories to equate the possible with the probable with the actual. They turn it could have happened into it might have happened into it happened.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #16 on: September 09, 2017, 07:57:32 PM »
Interesting you mention possibilities. A common tactic of conspiracy theories to equate the possible with the probable with the actual. They turn it could have happened into it might have happened into it happened.

This.

Of course, this cycles back to some wanting the label those who say (insert item here) is possible are "anti-Science" just because they made that statement, or hold that position.

Which would correctly make the person throwing "anti-science" labels around the guy who is anti-science if that's as far as the questioning went.

Just because something is Possible does not mean it necessarily is Probable.
Just because something is Probable does not mean it actually happened.

It isn't until we cross into the realm of the "conspiracy theorist" (that actually believes the theories) where probable and possible are one and the same, and that means they don't have to leap much further for probable to be interpreted as "true" rather than "false" or "uncertain."

slipstick

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #17 on: September 10, 2017, 10:05:19 AM »
Tobacco companies certainly sponsored deliberately fraudulent  research intended to destroy the belief that tobacco use causes lung cancer and other illnesses. But that campaign was not intended to be anti-science, for if nobody believed that scientific research discovered scientific truth, the fraudulent scientific results they manufactured would have had no effect on what the public believed. The revelation of their fraud certainly weakened belief in other allegedly scientific conclusions, but that was not an important goal of the tobacco companies, which primarily wanted to keep Americans buying as many cigarettes as possible.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #18 on: September 11, 2017, 10:47:51 AM »
The ability to think critically and question things has never been in the interest of the powerful to promote and spread.

So we've come to a place now where the White House director of social media retweets fake pictures of hurricane effects. Someone with, presumably, the ability to find out if pictures are real by picking up a phone or sending an email to FEMA.

So while people may be wrong about the danger of smoking, we have quite a number of other people who are wrong about the danger of second-hand smoke to the point where they react like they've been exposed to sarin gas if a waft of tobacco smoke goes near them - all while walking down a city street and inhaling the exhaust of a thousand cars, trucks, and buses.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2017, 11:05:56 AM »
Interesting you mention possibilities. A common tactic of conspiracy theories to equate the possible with the probable with the actual. They turn it could have happened into it might have happened into it happened.

Yes, this is the trap - to become so excited with a theory that the possibility is treated as more than it is. But - and this is a semantic thing - that isn't what makes a conspiracy theorist a whacko. There are paranoid people out there, maybe some schizophrenics, who genuinely believe either everyone is out to get them, or otherwise concoct elaborate theories not supported by evidence. These kinds of delusions are most appropriately what you would call anti-science, because they literally don't have any reference to reality, and science can be defined only as being tests against reality. From that standpoint people who are immersed in a bubble of their own imagination (like fanatically partisan citizens as they support their party) are more or less just as anti-science as the conspiracy nut in terms of being in touch with reality. But that's an entirely different matter from people who like to come up with creative alternate explanations for things to see if they can make them fit. That is actually the very essence of science, insofar as conjuring alternate hypothesis is a very scientific approach. However the difficulty comes with testability, and this is an issue that makes even the most balanced approach to theorizing about conspiracies fail at the litmus test of being what we could call a repeatable, demonstrable procedure. So if you're comparing theorizing like this to a scientific approach then you're right, it cannot pass muster. However, the claim that it's anti-science due to conspiracy theorists ignoring evidence is (a) pigeonholing everyone into the camp of the sloppiest of them, and (b) not even a propos because since full scientific rigor is impossible when data is absent there can neither be a scientific nor an anti-scientific position to take on the topic. The correct approach is to gather data in drips and drabs and try to connect the dots, which is an a-scientific affair and is more like solving an incomplete jigsaw puzzle.

I think, though, that you meant conspiracy theorists ignore actual data in favor of their imagined theories, and although this is surely true of many of them, it also happens to be true of most of the general population as well. I think most people will believe whatever they're going to believe regardless of what you show them anyhow, whether that's their partisan political stance, their way of life, their values, whatever. They'll mostly do whatever they were going to do anyhow. So by your definition most people are anti-science in the sense of rejecting real data, and so of course it must apply to conspiracy people as well. Maybe you haven't read serious accounts of conspiracy material and have only gotten the Alex Jones mania or whacko theories about lizard men, or flat-Earthers, and if so then sure, it looks crazy. But I've read well-reasoned accounts that use lots of evidence, do a lot of sourcing, and construct very elegant presentations. It just depends on whether you have the patience to wade through crap to find the gem on occasion.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #20 on: September 11, 2017, 01:24:52 PM »
Some conspiracy theories, I don't fathom. Like the moon landing. You'd have to look at evidence in a very odd way to support it being faked. Conspiracies would have to literally encompass the globe, since signals were received by ground stations in other countries. Things that they point to as evidence are easily explained over and over. From Van Allen belts to fluttering flags, they stubbornly deny the explanations. In this realm, you have chem trails, weather control, etc. Such conspiracy theories are most definitely anti-science.

Others are less clear because of the difficulty of proving a negative. Like - the bombing of Pearl Harbor - that Roosevelt knew the attack was coming and let it happen. There's no real evidence of it, but it has many of the right notes. Roosevelt was aggressive with Japan and Germany, but stopped short of military engagement. Though he might have known full well that the provocation could result in war, all written accounts suggest they were concerned about the Philippines, not Hawaii. Missing carriers, etc etc. There won't ever be a document that can straight up "prove" that Roosevelt didn't do it. And even if such a document did show up, it could be dismissed as part of the conspiracy.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #21 on: September 11, 2017, 01:29:23 PM »
Good points, Drake. Although in particular to the moon landing topic I haven't personally heard a good answer to the Van Allen belts objection. If you have a link...?

Other ones are certainly harder to parse and you sort of just have to make a judgement call. Like Pearl Harbor, for instance, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident. To me the JFK case is pretty blatantly a case of something funny going on, and there are others. There are right ways and wrong ways to look at these things, but I figure that having as a starting point that people in power lie is not going to lead you astray most of the time.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #22 on: September 11, 2017, 02:27:34 PM »
It was about the speed and trajectory.

Quote
One of the most important discoveries made in space was reported by the very first American satellite, Explorer 1, in 1958. It was revealed that several huge layers of radiation particles are trapped by Earth's magnetic field, called the Van Allen radiation belts. This discovery came as a considerable shock as here was a previously unknown but very real peril, which made certain regions of space uninhabitable without a prohibitive weight of shielding. However, it was soon realized that the VARB represented an obstacle to be bypassed, not a complete roadblock. By choosing suitable orbits it was possible to avoid the most intense levels of radiation; and to outward-bound spacecraft the belts were no serious menace because the vehicles passed through them swiftly.

Observations from the ground and from spacecraft demonstrated that the space radiation hazard was one of the lesser engineering problems to be overcome in Apollo spacecraft design and mission planning. Flux maps of the Van Allen belts were developed, solar flare particle events were subjected to intensive statistical analyses, and techniques were developed to calculate radiation doses behind complex spacecraft structures. Van Allen belt radiation doses were kept small by use of low-altitude Earth orbits and rapid transits to the Moon along trajectories with inclinations of about 30 degrees. Only the very large (and consequently very rare) solar flare particle events constituted a hazard for moderately shielded spacecraft. Also, secondary radiation was not significant for such spacecraft.

source

Basically, they skirted the edge of the belts, see Fig.3 and Fig.4

The belts are not spherical shells, or there'd be a big problem.

This video makes the trajectory more clear.


Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2017, 08:50:49 PM »
It's not mysteriously right-wing. The Right has had more of an interest in pushing anti-government conspiracy theories over the last eight years. The continuing narrative of the "Deep State" being opposed to Trump hasn't given the Left much reason to push a similar narrative. So left-wing theories focus on corporations like Monsanto and such which hasn't really gotten any support from the mainstream, so they aren't as prominent.

The left doesn't engage in theories because they don't need any in order to believe the generalizations they are told.  If Hillary Clinton says that there is a "great right wing conspiracy," they just believe her.  No theory or supporting claims necessary.  The right is at this point in history more imaginative and requires pretend tacts and a supporting narrative.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The information war is real, and we’re losing it
« Reply #24 on: September 16, 2017, 08:55:31 PM »
The thing is the only way to stay a conspiracy theorist is to reject evidence. Not just erroneously believing the evidence is bad after careful review or that you've been lied to or otherwise deceived. Sooner or later a conspiracy theory comes up against good solid evidence that disproves it. If it doesn't, it's not a conspiracy theory; it's just a conspiracy. There is no way to maintain a belief in 9/11, Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon or any other sort of trutherism without rejecting evidence wholesale.

9/11 involved a conspiracy between Bin Laden and the hijackers, neh?

Boston Marathon involved a conspiracy between the Jhokar and his brother, neh?

I don't know how you can dispute either conspiracy theory without rejecting evidence wholesale.