I am reminded of an old Asimov science essay...The Relativity of Wrong.
That's an interesting article, and helps me frame the conspiracy theorists mindset. When reading through I thought about the Moon and its atmosphere. I've seen ka9q use the Moon's atmosphere as an example.
Conventional wisdom tells us that the Moon has no atmosphere but it does, as reported by this
NASA article. It is a niche area of science and not relevant when we talk about the vacuum of space and astronauts, so for all intents and purposes we omit this information and yield to a model that fits our everyday needs. Consequently, the idea that the Moon has no atmosphere pervades common language, much like 'close the door you'll let the cold in' or 'heat rises.' When we talk about science in a colloquial sense, we omit the detail or speak with misconceptions, but everyone understands our meaning.
The conspiracy theorist armed with a little knowledge seizes upon words. A good example is Jarrah and the
Clavius article about moon rocks:
Geologists say lunar rocks aren't any different from the basalts found in earth's oceans. Clearly NASA just recovered seabed basalts and passed them off as lunar rocks.
It's not true that geologists don't see a major difference between earth seabed basalts and lunar rocks. Lunar rocks are anhydrous -- they contain no water and there is no evidence of the presence of water in their formation. This is not true of seabed basalts. Seabed basalts are simply the earth mineral that most closely resembles lunar rock.(reproduced without the kind permission of the author)
Of course, with recent data confirming the presence of water on the Moon, Jay is a big poopy-face liar once more. Aside from where the main sources of water are found (at the poles and in the shadows of craters) and where Apollo landed (equatorial regions in direct sunlight), the main point is the
presence of water in their formation. I take this to read that the rocks were not formed in the presence of vast quantities of water, and therefore do not contain the quantity of secondary minerals associated with rocks formed on Earth where water is abundant.
Again, my interpretation of Clavius is that Jay has taken a vast subject (Lunar geology) and explained it in one paragraph. The conclusion is correct without the needing to faithfully reproduce the supporting data and niche science. In the mind of a conspiracist Jay is covering up the lie. In the mind of a rational thinker, Jay is trying to convey the main point.
