Beam Me Up, Obama: Conspiracy Theory Claims President Teleported to Mars

Sorry, Fraser, but it’s feeding them that makes them stronger, IMO.

What might be more interesting is for journalists to investigate what Project Pegasus really was, and then present that as a rebuttal.

Unsurprisingly, I totally agree with Fraser on this one. It was my stance before writing for the Universe Today that to “feed the trolls” was a silly move. Why debunk their obviously unhinged theories? Sadly, doomsayers, crackpots and con men with a book to sell will butcher science to dress up their silly claims. If these people go unchecked, to a non-science audience they may appear to have a point. I see it as the responsibility of scientists and the science media to call-out the nonsense whenever they see it.

But the responsibility doesn’t end there. Whenever possible, the mechanism of debunking should be a positive experience for the reader. The news media is always on the lookout for a news “hook,” so in the process of debunking claims of Nibiru, say, the science media can spend time discussing how NASA’s WISE mission is currently viewing the universe in infrared — an emission that a celestial body like Nibiru or “Planet X” would be generating. WISE hasn’t spotted any rampaging brown dwarfs or killer asteroids in Earth’s neighborhood recently.

Obviously, that leaves us open to the “conspiracy” crowd who will accuse us of being agents for NASA’s coverups… alas there’s little hope of convincing those guys as they appear to lack the grasp of basic logic.

Cheers!

Ian

Ah, an editorial policy analysis.

I am not much cognizant of this subject, but as a private citizen I could fall down in either camp:

- It think there is enough statistics and behavioral/political science that says open and forthright positions are a winning strategy. Hence tone trolling is not helpful.

- I don’t think that forthrightness automatically translates to covering every piece of trash out there, even if it was practically possible.

For example, you still see blogs devoted to the whole purpose not only of informing about evolution science and the failings of creationism but to cover every “week in creationism”. (Yes, the Panda’s Thumb, I am looking at you!)

That, and the similar early willingness of scientists to debate creationists, gives these anti-science projects an unwarranted sanction as measured by the crank comments energized by it. Today most scientists do not give such easy handouts to the cranks. And of course UT is far from such a failure in communications.

I guess I need to see a convincing line between stated blog policies and the specific crank issue raised.

I admit to mild ridicule, as the author of the above. I felt the claims were so outlandish that outright debunking would be unnecessary. Granted, it’s not a full-blown investigation of the committees and persons involved, but my motives were not “trollish” at all. I more than assume that the readers of UT are all informed enough to know how silly this all is.