Return to Master Table of Contents
 

As what seems to follow any tragedy of this magnitude and importance, the internet and its myriad message forums suddenly become magnets for cranks, crackpots, irritants, harassers and some outright sadistic individuals. On Usenet, they've been given the common terminological reference as "trolls." You can pretty much rest assured that you will see many odd, ludicrous, slanderous and even outright insane theories and claims as to what happened to Columbia and its crew. In fact, several have been plastered on the sci.space.* groups in recent weeks; totally outlandish and improbable theories such as:

• "I've got a secret NASA document that's a transcript of a personal tape recorder..."
   
• "The HAARP project shot Columbia down!"
   
• "UFOs destroyed Columbia to prevent detection!"
   
• "My friend sent me these secret spy sat photos!"
   
• "Al Queda terrorists sabotaging Columbia prior to rollout!"
   
• "PLO/Hamas agents shooting down Columbia just to assassinate Ilan Ramon as an act against Israel and her allies!"
   
• "Columbia was sabotaged by disgruntled NASA and/or United Space Alliance workers distraught over budget cuts by Congress that were reducing Shuttle safety to an intolerable level!"
   
• "Columbia hit Russian space junk during reentry approach!"
   
• "It was an extreme high altitude bird strike!"
   
• "[Insert Religious Deity] told me [Insert Bogus Claim]! Honest!"
   
• "Morton Thiokol and Lockheed were responsible, and they fired me because I spoke up!"

These are all totally bogus theories, and anything sounding remotely like them should be considered highly suspect.

Those who were around when Challenger was lost in 1986 know that tragedies such as this tend to bring the crackpots and trolls out from hiding. Or, in the case of one particular crackpot - who, along with his entire *family*, has been harassing and even threatening various regulars on the sci.space.* groups with bogus legal threats for years - an impetus to redouble his efforts. The sad truth is that for the next few weeks, months, and yes, even years, we're going to have to deal with a lot of wild speculations, convoluted and contradicting conspiracy theories, and outright falsehoods and deliberate smear campaigns.

However, these issues are one of the main reasons this FAQ exists in the first place - to help prevent these kinds of disinformation and hoax attempts from gaining false credibility like some urban myths have achieved over the years by presenting the true facts in a credible, logical manner with none of the hype and rhetoric normally present in most troll hoaxes. Your average Conspiracy Theorist or Crackpot Troll will probably not give up his lunatic dreams, but the more people become aware that his theories are worth less than a roll of used toilet paper, the less support he'll get from the gullible and the unwitting.

Those who have difficulty determining when they're being presented with a crackpot theory should take note of the seven accepted warning signs of "bogus science." Physicist Robert Park, Ph.D., has identified seven indicators that a scientific claim lies "well outside the bounds of rational scientific discourse":

• The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
   
• The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
   
• The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
   
• Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
   
• The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
   
• The discoverer has worked in isolation.
   
• The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

There are also two corollaries to Parks' seven signs:

• The discoverer refuses to cite source and/or produce evidence to prove their case.
   
• When pressed to cite source and/or produce evidence to prove their case, the discoverer evades the subject and/or resorts to campaigns at slander and character assassination against those challenging his work.

While the existence of any one of these signs is not necessarily evidence that the theory is that of a crackpot - i.e. cosmology vs Park's Sign #7, or Sir Issac Newton vs Sign #6 -  if the theorist displays two or more of the signs, and especially either of the corollaries, then the theorist and the theory should be considered highly suspect and quite probably bogus.

As for how to deal with trolls, we suggest the following guidelines to dealing with trolls in this case:

• By not responding to them, period. That's the best way to starve a troll.
• By killfilling them. Out of sight, out of mind.
• By dealing gently but firmly with those who would respond to them and getting across the point that they shouldn't be responding to a troll in the first place.
• If you absolutely have to flame back at a troll, keep it short, rational, and by all means trim your quotes to preserve bandwidth!

Let's address each one of these in order:

• By not responding to them, period. That's the best way to starve a troll. Nothing hurts a troll more than not having anyone respond to his drivel. Except for the rare exceptions - i.e., Tony Lance, Robert McElwayne, etc - if you ignore them, they'll eventually go away out of boredom. This does work, but it takes a lot of patience and internal fortitude. Not everyone can pull this off, but in the rare situations where an entire group pulls together and supports one another in ignoring the trolls, it has been proven to work. However, since it is a rare case where this tactic works, that's the reason newsreaders that are worth using also offer support for killfiles.
   
• By killfilling them. Out of sight, out of mind. One additional solution to the problem of hoaxers, trolls and crackpots in the Usenet newsgroups has been the use of killfiles. In the unmoderated sci.space.* groups, anti-Shuttle crackpots and conspiracy theorists have been singled out as part of an active killfiling campaign, where those participating in the groups afflicted by troll infestation simply killfile them and ignore what drivel they attempt to foist on the unsuspecting. At the same time, they politely remind those responding to these insensitive trolls of their error, and strongly urge they assist the rest of us by participating in the killfile efforts. The end result doesn't totally eliminate the problem, but it does provide an improvement to the signal-to-noise ratio of the groups involved.

For how-to info on setting up killfiles in most of the common usenet newsreaders, we suggest you refer to the Killfile and Anti Troll FAQs at:

http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/

• By dealing gently but firmly with those who would respond to them and getting across the point that they shouldn't be responding to a troll in the first place. In addition to the trolls, crisis situations such as this also bring out those who don't participate in the discussion forums on a regular basis; in fact, some may have never visited a forum at all, much less posted a message on one. These "newbies" or "lurkers" may not know how to deal with these trolls, and may violate one or more of the many "taboos" that the regular participants in these forums, message bases and groups tend to self-impose upon themselves in order to keep the discussions on topic as possible. As a side note to the sci.space.* regulars, please keep in mind that many of the questions addressed in this FAQ are going to be posted again and again by people only just now discovering the newsgroups under this hierarchy. Ergo, some of those responding to troll and crackpot posts may be doing so out of ignorance. In the process of trying to starve off the trolls by denying them the attention they crave, it's probable that you'll chase off the newbies before they have a chance to figure out how the rules of the game work. Grant these "newbies" a little slack and simply refer them to this document. If they have any other questions, they can post accordingly.
   
• If you absolutely have to flame back at a troll, keep it short, rational, and by all means trim your quotes to preserve bandwidth! Of course, everyone has their breaking points. As Bart Sibrel found out at the hands of Buzz Aldrin, you can take harassment only for so long before the victim decides to hit back, and hit back hard. So, with that in mind, if you absolutely *must* reply to a troll to vent off steam, then whatever you do *please* make darned sure you trim your quotes. It's bad enough that trolls waste bandwidth as it is, so let's try to add as little to the waste as possible.

Bottom Line: Think about what's being said, and ask questions. Seek clarification, and above all if the word "conspiracy" enters into the discussion right from the start, then consider that a warning sign that the theorist is a crackpot. Remember, we won't always have Buzz Aldrin around to deal with whackos like Bart Sibrel, so it's best to be armed with the truth and the logic to see things in the proper scientific light.

And, of course, when in doubt, consult this FAQ, and feel free to refer it to others seeking facts and not wild and erroneous speculations and fabrications.