|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
Current rating: 0 |
by Joe Futrelle
Email: futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
01 Feb 2003
|
|
The tragic demise of Israel's first astronaut has already, predictably, attracted the usual conspiracy theorists. |
The tragic demise of the crew of the space shuttle Columbia, including Israel's first astronaut, has already, predictably, attracted the usual conspiracy theorists.
At indymedia.org, conspiracy theories on the shuttle disaster are by turns vacuous ("I'll bet the shuttle disaster was a terrorist attack carried out by Arab terrorist vermin"), superstitious ("Why is NASA in the business of witchcraft?") to fundamentalist ("NOTHING can stand in the way of Allah (S.W.T.). Let this be a lesson to those who plot against the children of Iraq and Palestine")
Readers and editors of Indymedia are and should be treating these threads with skepticism. The fact that they appeared immediately after the disaster when essentially no information was available about the cause or even many of the circumstances of the event indicates that the posters are simply exploiting the tragedy to further their political agendas.
Indymedia readers should insist on reporting and commentary based on reality. |
Comments
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
01 Feb 2003
|
|
Oops! There's a typo in the summary; it should read "The tragic demise of Israel's first astronaut has already, predictably, attracted the usual conspiracy theorists." |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Feb 2003
|
|
The summary has been corrected. |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by rainheart
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Feb 2003
|
What is the exact problem with speculation?
As a daily IMC reader I appreciate the kaleidescope of input on the open article section.
Any crap I don't wish to digest is just an alt+back arrow away.
rainheart |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by Icare
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
01 Feb 2003
|
What if Saddam payd some engineers to ensure the disaster by acting before departure on the heatschielding panels?
Is this feasable or not? The astronaut was the one destroying his atomic bomb plant before. And knowing Saddam, he is capable of these actions. |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by Icare
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Feb 2003
|
What if Saddam payd some engineers to ensure the disaster by acting before departure on the heatschielding panels?
Is this feasable or not? The astronaut was the one destroying his atomic bomb plant before. And knowing Saddam, he is capable of these actions. |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by Icare
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
01 Feb 2003
|
What if Saddam payd some engineers to ensure the disaster by acting before departure on the heatschielding panels?
Is this feasable or not? The astronaut was the one destroying his atomic bomb plant before. And knowing Saddam, he is capable of these actions. |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by charles pluym
callsumhyper (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
01 Feb 2003
|
|
what if there was radioactive materials on the shuttle ??! |
|
Are Indymedia Editors Taking Side Of Government? |
by A.
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -4
01 Feb 2003
|
Are Indymedia editors taking the side of the government?
The first OFFICIAL indymedia article posted on the Shuttle Disaster appears to endorse the government line, at least indirectly.
Indymedia editors have downgraded the open publishing newswire, and they decide what they think should or should not be placed on the main page.
They chose an article with the title:
Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster
The article begins:
The tragic demise of Israel's first astronaut has already, predictably, attracted the usual conspiracy theorists. The tragic demise of the crew of the space shuttle Columbia, including Israel's first astronaut, has already, predictably, attracted the usual conspiracy theorists.
The article cautions:
Readers and editors of Indymedia are and should be treating these threads with skepticism.
HOWEVER, THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED SHOULD BE TREATED WITH SKEPTICISM!!!
THIS INDICATES A GREATER TRUST OF THE GOVERNMENT THAN OF THE READERSHIP.
The article goes on to say,
The fact that they appeared immediately after the disaster when essentially no information was available about the cause or even many of the circumstances of the event indicates that the posters are simply exploiting the tragedy to further their political agendas.
HOWEVER, INDYMEDIA EDITORS WHO PLACED THIS ARTICLE ON THE FRONT PAGE DID NOT APPEAR TO BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE READY TO EXPLOIT THE TRAGEDY FOR ITS OWN POLITICAL AGENDA. WHY NOT?
THE EDITORS WHO CHOSE THIS ARTICLE SEEM TO TRUST THE GOVERNMENT WHEN IT MAKES ITS OWN PRONOUNCEMENTS, PRIOR TO ANY INVESTIGATION.
Why do some indymedia editors begin their coverage of this tragedy by castigating the readership and THE POSTERS, who suggest that the government might not be above board on this? Why do they not choose an article which suggests to the reader that he or she should TREAT THE GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS WITH SKEPTICISM??
Would a totally objective editor not treat government and readership statements (posters statements) with EQUAL SKEPTICISM?
ALSO: WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF?? Yes, some kooky theories may be posted. And the government may be putting out lies about the disaster.
I, for one, am skeptical about the NASA official who says he has not heard the tape of the continuous ground to air communication from the shuttle. Why not? Would that not be the FIRST THING he would want to hear?
Some editors want to treat the readership as enemies, simply for asking questions and proposing hypotheses. Some appear to want to accept the government explanations without questions. I find something troubling in that attitude.
|
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by billder
luxefaire (nospam) earthlink.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
01 Feb 2003
|
|
And indy Media writers, such as yourself, should be less preoccupied with censorship. Open publishing means just that. I know who you are, and I know who you work for. 1-2-03=33. |
|
A., Just Use Some Commonsense |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Feb 2003
Modified: 03:47:08 PM |
An article noting that readers should use a little commonsense is exactly what is needed at a time like this.
Only those who spawn and spam the too-quick-to-even-be-the-least-bit-believable stories that inevitably pop up in the wake of such things on IMC should be the only ones the least bit concerned about such an article. It ruins their fun, but that's just too bad.
As for the article appearing on the mainpage at http://www.indymedia.org , these articles are pulled automatically from the Feature sections of the worldwide Indymedia network by the software for posting there. There isn't anyone even involved in making the choice -- it's all automatic and, fortunately, beyond the reach of the troll horde to screw with.
As for why it's on the UC IMC mainpage as a Feature, it's because an editor here felt it was timely and important.
As for rainheart's concern about being able to read all the wacko stuff s/he wants, there's always the yellow press that you can read for free standing in line at the supermarket if you feel you're not getting enough of such BS. Indymedia volunteers would prefer that this network not be lumped together with such media, although it always seems that there is never a shortage of such crap here.
As for concerns about nuclear material on the shuttle, this was a research mission with no known such material on board (with the possible exception of a limited amount of DU, which is used in many aircraft for weighting control surfaces.) |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by Kenneth
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Feb 2003
Modified: 03:51:54 PM |
The IMC main site was spammed pretty hard today, but not just by "conspiracy theorists". The usual coterie of embarrasing right-wing trash was provided, as it often is when a big story is in the air. But, I'm sure the coincidence theorists would have an answer for that.
In January, there was concern voiced about the possibility of sabotage for this mission, for obvious reasons. "There is no question this is a high-value target," NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe said. "It has been identified as such by all of the intelligence information that we had received post-Sept. 11, that this is considered to be a very high-value target opportunity that terrorists view as a great way to make a statement."
While those who cry conspiracy may be quick to call foul on this; so, too, are the officials, for pronouncing this an accident before any investigation has been undertaken.
Missles and rockets are quaint technology now, and we should all know this. Scalar weaponry, electro-magnetics, microwave, and HAARP technology are in full effect, and it is nothing to bring down a space shuttle at any altitude.
|
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by Howard
tenji888 (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 7
01 Feb 2003
|
i agree with in particular the very last sentence of the above report. that said there is a place for opinions and the subjective. indymedia readers would do well to always think for themselves -- the major media expect us to take their word as gospel. hyperbole and opinion should be considered and discerned for what they are rather than taken as fact. people's emotions and sometimes cruel feelings are part of what makes the news happen. racists are part of what motivate the events we see unfolding, as well as rigid opinions based on religious motivation. all those things are part of reality: people gotta cull.
But if I tried to use a computer from 1979 to get on the internet i'd be in for a long boring day. |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by Sue Exxon
batgirl (nospam) vermont.com (verified) |
Current rating: 8
01 Feb 2003
Modified: 04:34:20 PM |
|
I am deeply saddened by the tragedy which occured today. But, I would like to make a point clear that many slighted members of our society are left dead without so much of a sigh. Please allow the people of the world to not limit the extent of compassion to publicized tragedies. |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
01 Feb 2003
Modified: 05:14:07 PM |
No one is suggesting that we treat any statements -- including government statements -- without skepticism. What is wrong with the posts that I quote is that they do more than ask questions or pose hypotheses. They also slur groups of people by referring to them with terms such as "vermin" or linking them to nebulously-defined threats like "witchcraft" without a shred of support or even a modicum of plausibility. Their "innocent" speculation functions as a cover for the slurs.
I am afraid, and rightly so, that the legitimacy of the IMC network as a source of information is undermined by trolls who deliberately or unwittingly post speculation and lies and use them to slander their enemies. How this serves the public interest or causes anyone to become better informed is utterly beyond me.
It is hypocritcal to hold groups accountable for the accuracy and trustworthiness of the information they provide, but then cry foul when you are held accountable in the same way. |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by stu
ironcloudz (nospam) hotmail.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
01 Feb 2003
Modified: 06:21:28 PM |
the type of posting you describe by agenda-driven "trolls" does not serve the public interest perhaps; however, it does serve the cause of free speech which is, i think, the "Prime Directive" here.
i also beleive that most readers here have the intelligence to do their own sifting.
-stu
I am afraid, and rightly so, that the legitimacy of the IMC network as a source of information is undermined by trolls who deliberately or unwittingly post speculation and lies and use them to slander their enemies. How this serves the public interest or causes anyone to become better informed is utterly beyond me.
|
|
The Title Says It All |
by Jon Chance
jpchance (nospam) egroups.com (unverified) |
Current rating: -2
01 Feb 2003
Modified: 06:53:36 PM |
Sounds like another attempt by the ADL-Mossad, posing as "liberals" and "Jews", to smear anyone who asks reasonable questions about Zionist terrorism.
We've not yet confirmed details about this tragic incident, but we've many details on past "coincidences" and "conspiracies" that have already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Much more important than this sensational and mind-imprinting event is the simple fact that "our elections" and "our money" are manipulated by transnational corporations, and that the 9-11 hoax - like the Pearl Harbor hoax - was an attempt by transnational bankers, such as the Rothschild Group, to maintain their 200-year-old political-financial fraud:
http://www.rothschild.com
http://themoneymasters.com
WHO COUNTS OUR VOTES?
http://www.fec.gov/pages/vendorslist.htm
http://egroups.com/group/jpchance/links/Elections_000993420693
WHO ISSUES "OUR MONEY"?
http://www.ny.frb.org/pihome/orgchart/board
http://egroups.com/group/jpchance/links/Treasury_000993420879
THE 9-11 INVESTIGATION:
http://egroups.com/group/jpchance/links/9_11_Investigation_001021231891
But ain't it the job of the pseudo-liberal pseudo-Jews of the media-money monopoly to blame everyone else - in advance - for their own dysfunctional political-economic system?
But why bother crying over spilled milk rather than moving forward to create a reasonable system that provides equal rights and equal responsibilities for all?
http://egroups.com/group/Time-Energy-Accounting
Terrorism by the CIA, Mossad and other "intelligence" agencies - who are simply operatives for transnational banks - is routinely used to distract people from empowering ourselves.
|
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by Marat
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Feb 2003
Modified: 07:00:05 PM |
Ok. This is what happens when you have a group of DIY journalist wannabes who begin to think of themselves as 'professionals', accountable to some bullshit higher standard of journalistic ethics.
The comtempt that UC IMC editorial group (collective may be too strong a word here ) holds the average inymedia reader is astounding. As if we needed center panel cues in order to be able to detect conspiracy junkies at work on the open wire.
But rather than offering critical media analysis of current scorporate news coverage of this story or asking legitimate questions about the character and nature of the tragedy, we are treated to this little homily.
Are there legitmate questions that should be asked about today's disaster? You bet. How about the chronic problems with Shuttle operations, maintainence, manufacture, quality control or safety issues and NASA's collaboration with the areospace industry coverups that have plagued US space exploration since the Mercury program? Or even more provocatively, posing questions about this mission's latest DOD classified payload ..which certainly is relevant, considering how close we are to a shooting war with Iraq. How sad that a local IMC would elect to wait until CNN or the NYT legitmizes these kinds of inquiries before actually engaging in real alternative investigative reporting. Spare us the lectures, do some homework, and make some radical media, folks. |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
01 Feb 2003
Modified: 07:29:49 PM |
|
Posters to Indymedia do not serve the cause of free speech merely by posting. It is the hardworking organizers and volunteers of the Indymedia network who serve the cause of free speech by working to provide and sustain an open forum. The trolls would like us to believe that we can't have free speech without them. But if they miraculously all chose to shut up, or to say something different, we would still have free speech. |
|
Learn The Meaning Of Troll |
by Tim
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
01 Feb 2003
|
|
Troll does not mean anyone who disagrees with you. Please look it up. |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 3
01 Feb 2003
Modified: 02 Feb 2003 |
|
I agree that "troll does not mean anyone who disagrees with you". The posters I originally criticized are trolls because they were attempting to draw the attention of newbies towards their continuing demonization of their enemies, as if that has anything to do with the shuttle disaster. I think this kind of poster should be criticized, but that is not censorship, that's just criticism. It's not even pro-censorship. Demonizing critics as censors demonstrates a mistrust of or lack of interest in criticism, which is ironic since one of the main reasons cited for opposing censorship is that it stifles criticism. |
|
More Discussion |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Feb 2003
|
You can find more discussion, initiated by trolling A., on the global Indymedia Newswire at:
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=233164&group=webcast |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by GP
MdWestDude (nospam) aol.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 3
02 Feb 2003
Modified: 01:26:35 AM |
Amen, Joe!
It's quite apparent to me that many of the stories here are terribly slanted with political hackings and insinuations, often extreme cheap shots and cute little buzwords which offer tell-tale signals of the authors political leanings, turning otherwise serious or contemplative issues into lop-sided comedy for fools to follow.
Topics as the space shuttle disaster truly deserve thought, consideration, the sharing and caring.. not rapid assaults at someone to blame. It's imporant to listen to items which are presented to us as fact, to assess those items as well as the sources of the information.
While I'm not one to necessarily trust government, (WITH MY MONEY), when government officials from every angle suggest there was no weapon which could have hit the space shuttle, I trust them with that. I have no reason to doubt that or build any further suspicions along that line.
I happen to think it was a pure accident, caused by some kind of minor weakness in some part of the structure which led to much larger problems during the incredible heat and tension experienced upon re-entering the atmosphere.
I will hold to that notion until something else is proven.
There is no point in speculating, and no sense in adding to anyone's already festering mental cauldrons of conspiracy theories and mind-numbing paranoia.
The space shuttle disaster was a sad loss to us all, and it's all we should really suggest at this juncture.
-GP
|
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by Joe Leftdipsh-t
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Feb 2003
|
|
Thank you so much. Where would we be w/ou you to tell us these things? |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by bov
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Feb 2003
Modified: 01:30:34 AM |
Who gets to decide what 'readers and editors' should think? Who is this omnicient being who has all the answers? Show yourself! Who is behind the curtain? Maybe you could do us a favor and check your crystal ball for how the war is going to turn out, and what we should think about that. Oh, and since you know that all the 'usual' conspiracy theorists are wrong - whoever THEY are - maybe you should go work for CNN and explain what the real truth is to everyone. Conspiracies are sort of messy, aren't they? Not the sort of thing anyone wants on imc threads - best to wipe them away.
It's funny that people who say they want democracy and invite diversity, are afraid of the most basic threats to their beliefs on issues which are complex and whose infomation comes from unreliable government sources. If someone with a touch of paranoia poses a sincere question they're to be labeled as wrong and bad and 'exploiting.' But the very reason that humans and most living creatures are around today is that we are each different in our own way, have a unique set of genes (unless we have a twin), and possess - each and EVERY one of us - a unique and important contribution to the world. Someone has to ask the crazy-sounding questions and have the right genes to take that social risk, or we're all doomed.
This is like the other day at a Green Party meeting I was at, some people started talking about how they wanted things to be more 'professional,' and I just cringed - what are they saying? It's fine to say things need to be in order, and functional, and the space needs to be clean, but professional?? What has become of the Greens when we're trying to look like CORPORATIONS?
This thread feels like that, like something went wrong. |
|
Facts Vs. Nonsense |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Feb 2003
Modified: 10:41:29 AM |
Nobody is saying that the facts in this case should not be addressed. The point of this story was to make readers aware of what is a common phenomenon here on Indymedia, which is that trolls, nutcases, and those just plain intersted in subtly attacking the credibility of IMC are quick to post stories based on nothing but their own prejudices and speculation. None of this does anyone any good, except to feed the egos of those who think they can fool some of the public, some of the time.
Then we get people like GP using this as yet one more excuse to attack the credibility of EVERYTHING on IMC, which is just as baseless as many of the wack conspiracy theories that float to the top of the Newswire.
Nobody's telling anyone what to think here, just that they should think, because IMC doesn't presort the news as the dominant medis does. If readers do not use a critical eye on IMC, they will be just as deceived as they usually are by the dominant media. IMC is a great resource, but it is not a perfect resource, especially since it has come under attack, by virtue of its open publishing nature, its wide reach, and its ability to report the underreported, from those who think that this gives them license to peddle the yellow journalism of ridiculousness.
As further proof of what Mr. Futrelle was writing about, check out these VERY questionable stories and comments posted in the immediate aftermath of the news, long before even those seriously intersted in sorting out the facts that the government may not want us to know could possibly have come to any conclusion worth justifying.
Note that the time displayed is Seattle time, two hours earlier than Central time. The shuttle is listed in news reports as having broke up at 8am CST and initial news reports were, of course, lagging after that.
1 hour 7 minutes later
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=233026&group=webcast
1 hour 29 minutes later
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=233006&group=webcast
1 hour 40 minutes later
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=233044&group=webcast
1 hour 46 minutes later
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=233046&group=webcast
It just gets more silly from there, with everyone from Saddam, to Martians/aliens, to witches, to Allah, to NASA/the government itself taking the blame or otherwise implicated, all without a shred of substantive evidence. Obviously not ALL these "suspects" can be involved, but there's sure to be some nutcase hard at work on an article right now which will tie all of them together into one grand over-arching conspiracy, no doubt.
One little article, like Mr. Futrelle's, among all this nonsense, is certainly called for, to bring reader's attention to the fact that IMC would be flooded by such BS, just so that, in case they don't already know, that they need to decide for themselves about the credibility of this stuff.
The only reason I can see for people (like some of those above) to get upset about such a reminder, amongst both the good stories and the detritus on the global Newswire, is because it ruins the fun of the fable-mongers. Well, that's just too bad.
After all, what is IMC but a place where the readers need to think for themselves? It is those whining about people being reminded to think for themselves who discredit Indymedia -- and maybe that is exactly the motivation of their complaints, not to mention that they are probably, in a few cases, responsible for much of the nonsense posting under discussion here. |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by Sascha Meinrath
sascha (nospam) ucimc.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 3
02 Feb 2003
Modified: 11:55:05 AM |
For the record, I was the one who posted the original feature. Let me tell everyone the exact process that unfolded and then everyone reading can make up their own minds about Indymedia censorship, the UCIMC's editorial collective, and the people who seem so quick to decry the work of Indymedia volunteers and the network as a whole.
I got online yesterday and saw that the shuttle had disintegrated. I checked the UCIMC website and noticed that there wasn't anything about this, even though it has great implications for both space exploration and the obfuscation of other, in my opinion, more important stories that the media would rather not cover.
I posted a razor-wire at the top of the site to alert readers to this event. Awhile later, Joe Futrelle posted a story to the local newswire. This was the first story posted on our local news wire on this issue, so I made it a feature.
That's it... that's the entirety of the process.
And I think it's rather obvious that some people would rather pursue the propagation of myths, fantasy, and red herrings when there are serious implications to the shuttle disaster that should be talked about. When people have questions or concerns about our editorial process, all you have to do is send our web collective an e-mail at: imc-web (at) ucimc.org -- you'll find that there's no "smoking gun" and no secret "man behind the curtain" -- just a group of volunteers doing the best we can to maintain an open forum for news dissemination and constructive discussion. |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by splintr
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 5
02 Feb 2003
Modified: 11:54:31 AM |
I personally, see no harm in a headline "warning" readers of the certain deluge of "conspiracy theories" that will be inevitably posted to an open, un-censored bulletin board. That strikes me as just plain responsible of the editors, not censorship. Heck, a warning to that effect should be displayed prominantly:
"This is an open, uncensored forum, and as such, every wacko with a grudge or pet theory may post here occasionally. Anyone can post anything. Read everything here with some skepticism, and remember, check it out for yourself." |
|
Re: The Shuttle Disaster - Center Panel Coverage |
by Ted, another IMC volunteer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
02 Feb 2003
Modified: 01:02:43 PM |
Actually, what's interesting here is that other IMC sites elected to simply post a warning about spam from conspiracy theorists around the shuttle disaster as a center panel feature on their sites, but actually posted relevant and critical info and background about the event. Every IMC must contend with spam and abuse of the wire. One of the reasons local IMCs - including UCIMC - have developed guidelines for posting to the wire. And if necessary, hide objectionable posts, according to local policy. But what's telling here, is the UIMC's editiorial assessment that dealing with the predictable spam produced by an event of this magnitude was more relevant than providing critical or investigative coverage of the news itself, requiring a center panel feature/editorial. One wonders if UIMC is more concerned about its credibility with grantmakers or other funders, -who may be less than comfortable with controversial or provocative content - than to its readership.
For a feature that actually does examine the shuttle disaser in context, See NYC IMC's feature entitled:
'NASA & the Space Shuttle Continue to Play Key Role in U.S. Drive to Militarize Outer Space
www.nyc.indymedia.org |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Feb 2003
Modified: 01:29:12 PM |
Ted,
Although the editors here do occassionaly write articles specifically for the Feature section themselves, generally we have relied on, and encourage, our local readership to write articles which are considered for the Feature section. The article above is the coverage that was done locally yesterday and that is what was posted, replacing a brief Razorwire notice that was first posted by one of our editors. If other material had been written locally on yesterday's events, it would have definitely been considered, but it wasn't.
This is by no means a criticism of how other IMCs do their editing, but is just to point out that is how we tend to see things here. I think that both approaches fall within the very broad idea of how Indymedia journalism should be done and that we all respect those differences as representing the outcome of local autonomy within the IMC network.
As for any relationship to concern about funders, your insinuation is baseless. |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by Sascha Meinrath
sascha (nospam) ucimc.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
02 Feb 2003
|
|
Below's a copy of the information posted at NYC -- definitely worth the read:
NASA & the Space Shuttle Continue to Play Key Role in U.S. Drive to Militarize Outer Space
The Space Shuttle has been used in recent years for everything from repairing the Hubble Telescope to deploying global positioning satellites that provide signals for most of today’s precision-guided “smart” bombs. While the world media covers the shuttle Columbia’s tragic crash over East Texas, little is said about the ambiguous and deepening relationship between NASA and the military especially under the leadership of NASA's new chief, Sean O’Keefe, a Dick Cheney protégé who served as Secretary of the Navy during the first Bush Administration.
NASA hopes to carry out tests for the Pentagon’s “Space Based Laser” by 2016 or 2017, according to Bruce Gagnon, director of Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. Under the Bush Administration, it is also looking to develop a new generation of nuclear reactors that could not only propel interplanetary spacecraft but provide the enormous power projection capability needed to keep laser battle stations orbiting above the Earth. The weaponization of space is forbidden by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which the U.S. signed. The United Nations re-affirmed its supported for that treaty in Nov. 2000 by a vote of 160-0 with the U.S., Israel and Micronesia abstaining.
NASA also envisions mining colonies on the Moon, Mars, and asteroids that would be powered by nuclear reactors, says Gagnon. All of the above missions would be launched from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on rockets with a historic 10% failure rate. The Global Network will hold protests Feb. 3-4 in Albuquerque, New Mexico at the 20th Annual Symposium on Space, Nuclear Power and Propulsion.
Also while NASA pours billions into military-related projects, basic maintainance of the space shuttle fleet has been neglected according to a
leading British paper. This reports contrasts with The Washington Post’s fawning coverage of NASA’s leadership in the aftermath of Saturday’s events.
[ Indymedia Readers Speak Out
| United States Space Command
| Ronald Reagan's State of the Union PR Stunt Caused 1986 Challenger Crash
]
|
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by -GP
nope (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
02 Feb 2003
Modified: 06:24:41 PM |
ML, sorry you feel the way you do about me, but I can assure you that your assesment of me is incorrect:
"Then we get people like GP using this as yet one more excuse to attack the credibility if EVERYTHING on IMC, which is just as baseless as many of the whack conspiracy theories that float to the top of the Newswire"
I think the IMC is a wonderful thing. You'll never know how much volunterism I've been involved with in my own life, how much I've given of myself to causes, and how I completely appreciate all the efforts of everyone involved at your establishment. I mean that very sincerely.
But, ya know it's pretty hard to show an opinion here which counters the norm of typical responses without being called every name imaginable. While one might be prepared to expect such, a fellow can still be amazed by how poorly he can be treated, and how resistant people are to accepting a counterpoint. People who have opposing opinions can indeed be friendly and often establish some really intriguing dialogue/debate, even friendships. I truly enjoy such a thing, particularly when common ground is realized as a result. That's when we realize we are all in the same boat of humanity, serving each other. It doesn't seem to happen here, however, and I thank you for your time.
It's all yours.
-GP
|
|
Please See "GP's" Comments At: |
by Karen
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Feb 2003
|
"CU Women Bare Witness for Peace"
http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/9042/index.php |
|
UR Accurate |
by *
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Feb 2003
|
|
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/02/MN3324.DTL |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by UC-IMC editors insult readers
spark (nospam) tearitalldown.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
03 Feb 2003
Modified: 11:42:10 PM |
i agree with "A.", the author of the "Are Indymedia Editors Taking Side Of Government?" comment. The editors of the UC-IMC site put up a very insulting approach to the shuttle story and the reactions it has gotten on the indymedia sites.
I also agree with Kenneth, who wrote: "While those who cry conspiracy may be quick to call foul on this; so, too, are the officials, for pronouncing this an accident before any investigation has been undertaken. " This is absolutely true. To call it an accident as soon as it has happened is nothing more than wishful thinking.
I've noted that in other ways the UC-IMC collective tends to lean toward worried-about-"legitimacy"-liberalism, and that's a cause for great concern since they hold the purse strings of the global indymedia network. So-called progressives who do things like patronize readers are greatly underestimating the readership. such an action falls into the same category as the peace activists who don't want anything "too radical" at marches for fear of "alienating the mainstream". Give the mainstream some f'n credit, for godsakes!
The "validate email" bullshit on this site is also insulting. i will not use it.
i say all of this as an indymedia activist in portland, oregon, who's been doing IMC work for 2 1/2 years. the too-careful approach that UC-IMC uses is only one approach. At other IMCs, the most successful ones have been the ones who expicitly align themselves with community organizations and concerns, and who don't try to be professional journalists. UC-IMC should keep that in mind as it continues its slide toward liberal oblivion. IT WON'T WORK.
|
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
04 Feb 2003
Modified: 03:19:43 AM |
"UC-IMC editors insult readers":
1. I'm not an editor.
2. If you're insulted when I remind you to be skeptical of what you read, then don't insult the UCIMC by attributing my pedantic tone -- which you have every right to be annoyed by -- to the editors, who did nothing more than move my post to the feature section.
3. Does anyone who is defending the right -- granted -- of people to post random crap seriously suggest that we investigate allegations of NASA's connection to witchcraft, or that we, on the basis of exactly zero evidence, follow up on the suggestion that "Arab terrorist vermin" somehow blew up the space shuttle, or that we entertain the idea that Allah was punishing the unspecified enemies of Iraq and Palestine by destroying the space shuttle which is linked to them in some unspecified way?
4. If you're so used to this kind of crap that it's an insult for me to tell you to ignore it, then why isn't it an insult when you remind us all that appealing to professionalism is a slippery slope towards liberalism? I know that. Just because _you_ know something already doesn't mean it shouldn't be said. If you've heard it before, go read something else.
5. Several people have suggested that the UCIMC editors are "taking the side of the government". That's incoherent. There is nothing to suggest that the government has a "side" in this investigation. You can't just create a two-sided debate by making shit up about witchcraft and Arab vermin and calling that a "side" which opposes the government "side". Until some _information_ comes to light -- from anywhere, not just official sources of course -- that calls for serious consideration of an alternative scenario for this disaster, then it makes no sense to claim that the government, or the UCIMC, or the posters I was originally whining about, are taking sides. |
|
Your Specious And Inaccurate Comments |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Feb 2003
Modified: 12:14:32 PM |
Well, spark, it seems to have touched a nerve to actually insist on some factual basis as at least a de facto standard by which to assess Indy journalism. I personally never realized that asking Indymedia readers to think for themselves would be so controversial with, or even rejected by, certain segments of Indy activists.
If you can make the (unsubstantiated) charge that somehow we at UC IMC are too close to being what the dominant media is, then tell me this: How is implicitly (which I believe the arguments that you and the few others have made against this story do) defending the many imitators on IMC of crappy tabloid journalism (which is simply another form of dominant media journalism) you see at the supermarket checkout lines really any different? Because that is all that Mr. Futrelle seems to be getting at. As for "insulting" our readers, perhaps if he had reminded IMC readers to be skeptical of the government that could have been seen as insulting, since I think the reason that most readers come here is because they ARE already skeptical of the government (and the dominant media.) So in my mind A.'s reminder here, and where it was posted on the global IMC Newswire, that readers should be skeptical of the government could also be seen as insulting by the very same standard that you both seem to be using.
I don't believe that this collective has done anything that is outside the very broad definition of what Indy journalism is all about. And we certainly haven't insulted our readership, who from the beginning of this IMC have always been committed to at least a modicum of accuracy in the work we do. And I see nothing inaccurate about what Mr. Futrelle has written -- if anything, while his original post was somewhat speculative at the time it was made, it has definitely been proven true by subsequent events. Which is far more than can be said about ANY of the wacko conspiracy theories that appeared on Newswires across the IMC network.
It should also be noted that he did not call for any of what he warned about to be removed or hidden. Readers still have full access to all of that. But the intense whining that has emerged from a few makes me believe that, while they haven't explicitly called for it, they would prefer that his post had never appeared, while somehow believing that the speculative excesses of others represent what this network should be about.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I worry that factually supported material like Futrelle's should be so controversial, while so much of the crap that inundates the IMC network passes without comment. I believe, like many, that much of the nonsense that some people post as "news" (news is what I have always believed is supposed to be factually supported material, whether in the dominant media or not) is aimed specifically at discrediting the IMC network, perhaps even being financed and organized by the government itself. To me this is far more of a threat to our network than an occasional and timely caution for our readers to think for themselves.
As for "legitimacy" liberalism, that is nonsense if you are trying to palce that charge against us. If Indymedia is ever to have a broad impact and persuade the masses that the concerns of our network are important to their lives, it must be seen as MORE legitimate than the dominant media. If you see the purpose of this network is to actively build in people's minds the idea that we are illegitimate, what's the point? You’l just end up talking to yourself and the few that might already agree with you. That is the situation that we are in now and it is a paradigm that must be broken by IMC, not reinforced. I would say that is something we want to overcome, not wallow in.
Your totally bogus charge that UC IMC "hold[s] the pursestrings of the global indymedia network" is ridiculous, but probably reveals far more about the motivations of your post than anything else you wrote. The UC IMC is but one source of funding, by making funds (which we don’t actually have any control over, other than to pass through to those who usually take the initiative to apply for them) to members of the network and only to those who _choose_ to utilize what resources we can make available. The global IMC network decisions about finances are still made by the Global Finance group and UC IMC has no particular power beyond that offered to any other member of this consensus based body.
Finally, your idea that somehow this IMC is not deeply rooted in the activist organization in our community is simply without basis. I can't comment on how deeply rooted other IMCs are in their communities, because I am not familiar with their circumstances, but I can assure you that we are a major center, and resource for, activism in Urbana-Champaign, with activists from nearly all groups in the area as active participants in this IMC. This includes artists, anarchists, socialists, gender and peace activists, Green Party members, and, yes, even some liberals. Perhaps what irritates you is that your preferred group doesn't dominate -- in that case, move here and organize, as we take pride in our open collective. We could probably even tolerate the likes of you.
|
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by J. Cole
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Feb 2003
|
To Ron Dittemore,
I think that terrorism should not be ruled out as the cause of the Colombia disaster. While it would be difficult to bring down a shuttle coming in for a landing, it would not be difficult to attack a shuttle in its early launch phase. A high powered rifle could do damage at a distance. Unless it would be totally impossible for an assailant to get within range, then an attack at launch must be considered.
A launch differs from landing in one important respect: at launch, the more speed is built up, the less dense the atmosphere is. When landing, as the shuttle encounters the atmosphere, enormous heat is built up as the shuttle descends into a thickening atmosphere resulting in a longer period of thermal risk. An attack leading to small damage at launch might not become a critical factor until the landing phase. When the material was seen flying off the fuel tanks at launch, it is conceivable that it was dislodged by small arms fire which would be very difficult to detect. Multiple hits on the shuttle would account for the fact that the unusual temperature readings were seen in wing, fuselage and wheel well. Pin prick damage could result from a bullet that was fired at a distance in which much of its force would be spent by the time it arrived. When I originally saw in the news that an Israeli was going up, I wondered if this might make the shuttle a target. I do not think this can be ruled out since the small damage required to bring down a shuttle could be accomplished by a psychopath as well as a terrorist organization. |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by Derrick Lee
nnursie (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Feb 2003
|
|
I think that the incident with the Columbia space ship was a very big deal and i dont know why others are making such a big deal about the helecopter incident and saying well people all over america didn't put their flags at half mass and cry when the did for the astronauts..... well i feel sorry for every body that lost a family member and my prayers go out to......sorry.... |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Feb 2003
|
The NYT magazine ran a bemused and well-written portrait of lunar hoax conspiracy theorist Bart Sibrel.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/magazine/09MOON.html
For Bart's perspective see
http://www.moonmovie.com/
For a point-by-point rebuttal of the moon hoax theories see
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html |
|
Re: Conspiracy Theory Watch: The Shuttle Disaster |
by shiju.p
shiju_krishna2000 (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Aug 2006
|
|
I am also a prey ofsurveillance technology.And willing to study more about mind reading ,mkulthra project,surveillance technology,and HAArp programme.And i hope you may take interest in my case |
|
