As a conspiracy theorist, I'd like to open up a window into the actual thought process of one.
My goal is, for those who are interested, to open up a new landscape of possibilities which indeed streches far beyond what is currently imaginable.
For those who are skeptical, the goal is to show some level of structure behind it all, so at least perhaps some level of tolerance for us can be developed.
I don't think I'm going to prove anything to anybody, but that's ok. I'm just sharing.
I have a lot to say, probably more than I can type here and more than you want to read.
First some background on myself. I'm in my 20's, have university degrees (involving science/math/engineering). Raised christian, current orientation/religion would be too difficult to describe here, but you can take a guess after reading these. Raised conservative, but I can't accept any of those labels....everyone makes good arguments. The reason for this vagueness will become apparent soon.
Which (conspiracy) theor(y)(ies) do I subscribe to? None. Which do I believe in? All of them.
Furthermore, I recognize I am quite biased, reactionary, irrational, easily mislead, and possibly bigoted. (These are nothing but conspiracy theories, right?) I recognize that it is in fact impossible to know these traits about myself objectively, much less magically will them away. Instead I attempt to develop models (theories) of these traits in order to undistort the perceptions I have. These models are variable and unknown, and must be constantly updated. Furthermore, I must constantly and eternally fight bigotry because that is the single most dangerous trap, the ultimate conspiracy, if you will.
I'm going to write this very information dense, and it will seem like there are leaps in logic, because I won't necessarily build things up point by point. You might have to fill in some gaps. This is known on my part. In the context of the entire message, when using the reasoning I'm discussing, it will (should) make sense.
The term "conspiracy theory" is a very bad term. It doesn't really have to do with conspiracies. It has more to do with possibilities. And the term 'theory' is used a little bit loosely too, hypothesis would be better. But theory could potentially be ok. In fact, in my (biased) point of view, it shouldn't even have a name. Instead there should only be a name for non-conspiracy theorists, such as "subscribers" or "believers". Among the people out there actually making the theories, it's just normal...there is no special name for it. In other words, labels are usually reserved for specific things, such as "buddist", "liberal", "nazi", "academic", "steeler's fan", etc. Such labels denote certain attributes. However, there are almost never labels that denote everything but a specific attribute.
From a "conspiracy theorist's" point of view, the official story is one possibility. There are an infinite number of possibilities. It doesn't make sense to give a special name to everything except the one special case. The official story could be 99.99% right, but not totally right. It could be 57% correct. It could be 22% correct. It could be 0.01% correct. It could be 57% correct and one theory of what really happened could be true, but it could also be a different 57% correct and an entirely different theory could be true. In fact, the odds that any one person or organization is completely correct is pretty much zero. There is a continuum. A conspiracy theorist recognizes (a) there is a continuum of possibilities, (b) the likelihood of anyone being completely right is almost zero, and (c) all theories are recognized to be possibilities, not certainties. The last one is what I think most people have problems with. Most people are certain about their personal view of the world, and therefore when someone says they believe some version of something happened, they transfer their personal certainty onto the person making the claim, and are shocked at what they find. On the other hand, from the other person's view, it was implied that their theory isn't gospel. They probably don't even totally believe it themselves! They don't expect the other person to take it that way.
The problem is the differences of the underlying thought processes. "Believers" or "subscribers" are fundamentally process oriented. In other words, to them, the important thing is the thought process of deductive reasoning. They use it to arrive at a relatively certain conclusion. Deductive reasoning takes premises and rigorously develops them by rules of logic to arrive at a certain result. Deductive reasoning doesn't give unambiguous results. There is a 1 to 1 mapping of premises and conclusions. While "subscribers" have truly mastered deductive reasoning, they are unfortunately uncritically accepting of the underlying premise or premises from which they base their deductions on. These are not consciously observable. They stem from their childhood, social norms, and form the foundation of their lives. As I mentioned previously, it's not possible to be objective about yourself. You can't use deductive reasoning to discover the basic premises you hold, because that deductive reasoning would have to assume other premises. As is well known, deduction can't prove itself. The only way to obtain premises for use in deduction is through induction. Induction means that it happens so often that you take it as truth. This goes back to the upbringing and social norms I talked about. These have been repeated so many times through our lives that we take them as truth, then build our deductive premises from there. For example, if your village practiced a certain religion for the last 100 years, inductively you understand that is correct. Then you use that foundation to deduce other things about the world. There can be no other way. How does one throw off such an upbringing? Well, if he goes to school for 18 years, then another type of premise is unknowingly inducted into him. He learns that academia and governments actually hold the ultimate truth, and one's foundation for deduction should in fact be academic ideologies presented to him. You see, people can't simply not hold any premises. To do so would be to admit he knows nothing about the world. He knows nothing for certain. Anything is possible. This generates extreme fear in a person, the fear of the unknown. To simply admit that one truly cannot be certain of anything basically means that the rational mind, the greatest tool discovered by man, must be cast aside. Some other unknown thing is in control, leading to some unknown destination with unknown consequences.
On the other hand, the "conspiracy theorist" has "taken the red pill". Somewhere, they've fundamentally admitted they don't know anything for certain. As you can imagine, this can induce paranoia. When the rational mind is temporarily set aside, it becomes possible to see madness. Luckily, we need not grope around in the dark. We have tools available to us. We take our best tool and develop an advanced cognitive process. Through the conscious realization of our own previous flaws, we become able to tap into the hardware of our brains. Why? Because we aren't trapped in the strict process of deduction which was recognized as flawed anyway. It's like we were running a single-threaded algorithm previously on a cpu, but now we just fired up the graphics card. We're going to need it though because now we're going to face some pretty extreme statistical and pattern recognition challenges.
Instead of being fundamentally process oriented, specifically the process of deduction, "conspiracy theorists" are fundamentally observation driven. They uncritically absorb all data. They "believe" everything. But unlike the single-threaded deductivist, beliefs are not mutually exclusive. All beliefs are built up concurrently in parallel. It's ok if such beliefs, or theories, contradict one another. This is a statistical situation where there are only probable beliefs/theories. The top 3 theories could be contradictory for example. Maybe #3 is the official story, but #1 and #2 are alternate theories which contradict one another. They are based solely on trying to come up with theories to fit the data. In other words "the best guess based on everything you know".
What I've just described to you is known as abductive reasoning. Deduction was an exact processes yielding a single, certain outcome. While the process was exact, it was only as good as the premises it was based on. But it was impossible to deduce the premises. For that, the second method of reasoning was used, called induction. Through simple repetition, induction chose premises which deduction could then use. But we saw that was flawed too. Either you were isolated and believed whatever your village taught you, or you were formally educated and believed whatever official reports told you. These are great in academic settings where people are talking about the acceleration of a falling apple which can be replicated by anyone. But when talking about social or political stuff? It's not so great. Induction fails.
Abduction on the other hand can be defined as "the best guess based on everything you know". Induction could be viewed as a special case of abduction, because after you see something fall to the ground for the millionth time, you can safely say that everything you know tells you, inductively, it will happen again. But abduction is much more generalized. It has practical uses in artificial intelligence and law, for example. And also, as we've seen, in trying to form a basic view of the world without pretending you already know the starting point. What are the consequences of this? It means that (1) you won't arrive at absolute certainties, but rather likely probabilities, and (2) different people will necessarily arrive at different conclusions. Because they each know different things and have different experiences, and therefore they will make different "guesses". We can't criticize them for that, or laugh at them. In fact if you're doing it right, you yourself have questioned the potential insanity of your own mind. No, conspiracy theorists are highly tolerant people.
Another feature is the way they debate, or lack thereof. Most "subscribers" cannot comprehend how someone who presents their theory, and yet won't debate it, is in any way a rational person. From the other person's perspective however, it's not about debate. Debate is the deductive process of making sure that the conclusion follows from the premises. From an abductive perspective however, it is recognized that the theory is based on a person's unique data and conclusions. While it is recognized that there is only one objective truth, the process to arrive there is non-trivial and non-unique. Rather than point-by-point debate, it is instead a give and take scenario. People just share what they believe and why, and other people counter with what they believe and why. Instead of trying to disprove what they said, you add on to it! Remember, you believe everything, take in all data, build parallel possibilities. You are trying to figure out the truth for YOURSELF and using other people's brains to help you. To catch flaws in what you think; as a sounding board to build models of your own biases. They do the same. It's all about working together, sharing and adding. Debating is ok too, but it's sort of an abstract thing and not a personal battle. There is an implied mutual understanding about this. That's why when different people with different cognitive process try to talk, it doesn't work.
Most people have a difficult time understanding how truly different the two different cognitive processes described here are. Deductivists/subscribers believe they are already taking all possibilities into account, and that all the different spurious theories simply have no weight and are therefore largely irrelevant. Perhaps the simple answer is that conspiracy theorists just can't distinguish between relevant and irrelevant facts? It's much different than that. The fundamental attitude of a subscriber is that in order for them to believe something, change their conclusion, or even take the time to look at the details of a possibility, they have to be presented with evidence. They say “prove it to me”. They've settled on an essentially logical conclusion, and do not come up with alternate explanations beyond that point unless compelling evidence is presented to them.
On the other hand, the “conspiracy theorist” never stops asking questions. Even when they are pretty confident they know what really happened, they inevitably question the official story – their personal official story. They are driven by the fact that they don't really know what happened.
Truth is not a right; it's a great privilege only gained by a few through hard work and brutal self honesty. It's immature to expect things to be proven to you. When one recognizes his abject ignorance, truth seeking then becomes a desperation. Instead of asking something to be proven to him, the ignorant should seek out those who he suspects know more than him and beg to be taught. Only those who hold unquestioned premises have the luxury of taking a passive role, everyone else must either take an active role or choose to be ignorant.
Continually asking questions, looking at the possibilities in every context, looking at the possibilities of those possibilities, and questioning one's own personal official theory is indeed a distinct feature of abductive reasoning. Over time, petabytes worth of information will be gathered, creating unforeseeable connections and patterns that the deductivist just cannot see, because he stops asking questioning once he has come to a conclusion. Further questions must have “proof” which may itself require these petabytes of information which they are lacking.
"Conspiracy theorists" are not a special group, they are simply responding rationally to their environment. Ironically, in my (biased) opinion, "non-conspiracy theorists" are the irrational ones.
Hopefully now you can understand the thought process better. As I mentioned, it's non-trivial to even know if you understood it. As you can imagine, changing a cognitive process isn't necessarily a conscious choice. But you can see some elements of it in this writeup. It's not really deductive. I don't list sources, rigorously build up an argument, and I don't leave you with a solid conclusion. I'll read (and believe) your response, but I won't necessarily defend what I'm saying in a point-by-point manner. This is not defective thinking, but simply the only choice I have as I sit alone in my island of uncertainty and doubt. I was always here, but I just didn't know it before. What else am I unaware of?
Conspiracy theorists pat their own ego by subscribing to outrageous theories that are on the fringe because it makes them feel a sense of superiority by "knowing" something other people don't. It makes them feel special to be one of few to to "see the real truth". Some also have actual mental problems like paranoia or anxiety disorders to make things worse.
The term conspiracy theory is not bad or misleading. For these theories to be true there has go to be a very large conspiracy to keep it contained, one so large it is very very very improbable (you know like impossible) it is true. Conspiracy theorists because of this "minor problem", tend to ignore proof that points in another direction, while they keep rehashing their own bullshit however debunked it may be.
You Sir are exactly what you say you are in the opening phrase: "[...] I am quite biased, reactionary, irrational, easily mislead, and possibly bigoted." And those word do have a proper meaning, that is not a conspiracy theory.
We had a dude like this where I used to work, he was the most irritating person I've ever had to deal with. He tried to convince me that his friend worked at area 51 and that they had a time machine there, and that he had seen it. Of course he couldn't tell me specifics, because the Illuminati or the bronies or whateverthefuck was watching him.
I think it was the smugness that annoyed me the most, the preening condescension that somehow he knew something that we mere drones did not.
On February 19 2013 17:46 McBengt wrote: We had a dude like this where I used to work, he was the most irritating person I've ever had to deal with. He tried to convince me that his friend worked at area 51 and that they had a time machine there, and that he had seen it. Of course he couldn't tell me specifics, because the Illuminati or the bronies or whateverthefuck was watching him.
I think it was the smugness that annoyed me the most, the preening condescension that somehow he knew something that we mere drones did not.
Can totally relate to that. Used to have a friend who lived at his mom's house, smoking weed every fucking day playing Xbox and watching the Zeitgeist films. He basically forced people who visited him to watch these shitty documentaries. Then when you criticized the films he'd go "you're too young/closed-minded" as if he was some kind of genius. He was not.
I'd just like to point out OP you're pretty much attempting to redefine what a conspiracy theorist even is. You're trying to make it sound it's someone who's simply questioning everything in pursuit the truth. That's not really what it is.
Honestly, I can't stand people who act like this (regardless of whether or not they fall into the conspiracy theory line). Questioning things can be good, but only to a point, and that point is not just passed by gone miles beyond by these (general) people.
I read your title and was prepared to be irked and annoye by someone trying to tell me we never landed on the moon and that the MLB is actually a front for the now-underground KGB/SS conglomerate.
Instead I found myself reading a description of how I try to think. I do not have the education nor experience in this area as you clearly do, so I have never constructed my thought process in such explicit terminology, but essentially I agree with you. What a pleasant surprise haha. Good read.
Aheh. I love how people are applying their own person definition of a conspiracy theorist to the op's post, which very clearly defines what he's talking about, and it has nothing to do with believing Elvis is alive but instead the nature of belief itself. Addressing the subject so casually in such a snide way makes me believe I'm the only one so far to actually read the OP in fullness. It was good stuff, I suggest ya'll go back and try to understand what he's saying.
On February 19 2013 18:07 FabledIntegral wrote: I'd just like to point out OP you're pretty much attempting to redefine what a conspiracy theorist even is. You're trying to make it sound it's someone who's simply questioning everything in pursuit the truth. That's not really what it is.
Honestly, I can't stand people who act like this (regardless of whether or not they fall into the conspiracy theory line). Questioning things can be good, but only to a point, and that point is not just passed by gone miles beyond by these (general) people.
So address what he's talking about and not the word "conspiracy theorist"?
Yeah I unfortunately have to regularly interact with two people who are nice although they are conspiracy theorists. They are woefully ignorant of politics and the law. And attempt to educate them is dismissed as an attempt to convert them to live under the thumb of the man. Their entire belief system comes from unproven assumptions. They and their friends just make me laugh, because I can't believe how ignorant and silly they are, at the same time as thinking that I am the ignorant one. I mean they even try to lecture me on the law, something I studied, on things that I specifically studied and can point to the textbook or relevant case that will disprove what they are stating...and they still think that I am the ignorant one. Holy sugar...this sort of person is frustrating.
On February 19 2013 16:29 fight_or_flight wrote: "Conspiracy theorists" are not a special group, they are simply responding rationally to their environment. Ironically, in my (biased) opinion, "non-conspiracy theorists" are the irrational ones.
OP is just having trouble to have an opinion on anything. He can't form one or accept one. Just try to find ways to gain some confidence. Trying to present yourself as a new age scientist is not cool.
The problem with 'conspiracy theorists' is, as you said, they don't stop asking questions.
The problem is they don't understand the answers or choose to ignore them, or just ask generally really stupid questions and don't provide any answers and they do not adhere to the most fundamental part of being a scientist which is once you have created a hypothesis it is your duty to break it down and prove it false.
Fact is 99% of these people aren't scientists or anything of the sort (I'm curious why you have degrees (plural), where from and what disciplines?), they think they're experts on fields they have no right to be in. Just go watch the 'truthers' vs Popular Mechanics and you'll see what happens when conspiracy theorists are presented with legit evidence and reasoned debate.
They fail, hard, and embarrass themselves beyond redemption. This is why noone takes you seriously, because you can't be taken seriously. You present bad arguments but are unaware of your own false logic or poor reasoning. Then you blame our 'narrow-mindedness' and go off and sulk in a corner convinced of your own greatness.
It seems to me this is almost like a normal person's logic:
1) Observe something 2) Come up with multiple theories as to how that observation could have been produced 3) Test or think about what these theories imply 4) Revise/drop theories based on results
Except you just miss the last two steps.
I guess I am possibly biased in believing in Occam's razor. To me it makes a lot more sense that we are sitting on a planet orbiting the sun, than to be inside a computer simulation run by some other beings or under control of a mysterious organisation that would have to have perfect coverups of everything for the last thousand years or so, especially today in an age where information is so free. When a theory requires more and more complications to be valid the more you think about it, I tend to take that as meaning it is likely wrong.
aliens crash-landed on earth a while ago and now they're just using us to build them a spaceship so they could get back to their planet. upon leaving, they'll get us back to the ape stage or destroy us completely 'cause we had served our purpose and are no longer usefull. they use a hybernation form to pass unaged through eons and take turns in doing so.
It was funny to hear the rest described as "believers" since one of those snide remarks us 9/11 dupes use for the conspiracy community is "he/she's a true believer." Funny start to my read, hearing that.
I kinda liked the read. I come away from it thinking that those in conspiracyville put too much stock in the rest of the world's inability to look at things with an open mind. In essence, since our own beliefs cloud our analysis, this extends to both (1) everyone and (2) significantly affects it. I may be a villager that thinks the Sun god actually talks to our medicine woman, but keep an open mind about what made the balloon fly up, or the well fills up with something underground. In the global sense, something that has something slightly wrong will be considered semi-rationally from all people hearing about it with their backgrounds. People fully trustworthy of their government, some slightly so, some not at all. To have all these at once drowning out the other voices and dismissing them is rare. I'm slightly encouraged that you do understand that some things have that 0.01% chance of happening, but are generally dismissed.
The other problem I have with the "they are simply responding rationally" is how easily the stereotypical one jumps from a 0.01% explanation to a second 0.00001% explanation to back it up / reject evidence. The fluorescent light bulb was actually invented by a misandrist in a sinister plot to kill sperm. The scientific lack of evidence of this is the same vast conspiracy; because the scientists that found nothing wrong with it wear protective underpants, and want their genes spread and others progressively whittled out! Stories that sound as implausible as this. This happened, and then the Jews did that, or the Big Business types did that. The knights templar hid it, the freemasons protected it, the American founding fathers moved it ... it all starts to sound like a bad movie.
So, no, I don't think the conspiracy theorist accumulates petabytes of good data as he has a fondness for his own conclusions and has a high tolerance for information that would lead a reasonable person to reject them. I like them around so long as a 0.01% chance might turn out to be true one day and the search will discover real evidence a year down the road. Just don't give them any kind of power because I'd like my head-wear not forced to be tin.
I've never come across any conspiracy theorist who had a (logically) consistent story. Ironically, none of them were openminded enough to even consider flaws in their stories.
"On the other hand, the “conspiracy theorist” never stops asking questions. Even when they are pretty confident they know what really happened, they inevitably question the official story – their personal official story. They are driven by the fact that they don't really know what happened."
Like i said above, this is untrue for all conspiracy theorists i've met. I dont want to generalise, but i don't think you should.
On February 19 2013 19:22 Yorbon wrote: I've never come across any conspiracy theorist who had a (logically) consistent story. Ironically, none of them were openminded enough to even consider flaws in their stories.
To them they would think we were close minded, and if you believe the first few tenants of their conspiracy the conclusion may not seem so far fetched.
I will just highlight what I feel is wrong with your reasoning.
While I do agree that truth is an axiomatic construction, it is hypocritical to present yourself as an absolute skeptic, as conspiracy theorists defend their own theories (you can't call that an hypothesis if you've decided in favour of something). The only absolute skeptic is a solipsist who does not act, which is impossible because our brain still functions following the priority of survival in our day-to-day lives. Do you doubt that reality is real every second of your life? For example, those who believe in the NWO will doubt certain facts only to replace them with facts of their own, allthewhile not questioning anything else. Ironically, they'll often exclusively read literature which goes their way, effectively swapping a thought process they see as "mainstream" with another.
This view is what defines conspiracists. Why do you find so many among drug users? Is paranoia really a consequence of their illumination, or the cause of it all? It's basically a counter-culture that defines itself against what is considered "mainstream". It's really not that different from hipstership. There's the idea that conspiracists have found a superior way of thinking, when you are in fact only rejecting what is considered normal. In the majority of cases, I find that it's a way for mediocre thinkers to pat themselves in the back and compensating for their lack of classical and/or academical knowledge. As for the others, I do believe that they simply get lost on the possibilities. My grandfather is an intellectual who went down that path, but I wouldn't classify him next to some college dropout who is trying to regain his self-confidence by convincing himself that he's a cultured critical thinker.
From what I read, I doubt you really posses an academic grade in anything related to nat. sciences. Or you didn't understand your statistics course.
The problem stems from the fact that we build bridges and they don't collapse. So it seems at some point the "normal" people are up to something. And we don't have to come up with a million theories if one suffices. (Grossly simplified.)
Otherwise: Welcome to postmodern thinking. Leading to nowhere but highly sophisticated.
I have many friends who are into conspiracy theories (or whatever you want to call them). I see them much the way i see religious people, in that i think their mind has taken the easy path, succumbed to the ultimate academic temptation, which is a truth that cannot easily be disproved (this is my opinion and just a way to illustrate my point, i don't want to get into a debate about religion.) Of course, each person has different beliefs and sees different truths, so i can't comment too much without generalizing.
What i can say is that the following people are proven liars: Michael Tsarion (who managed to get a video proving that he lies removed from youtube on multiple occasions). David Icke Alex Jones (the worst type, because he mixes lies with a healthy dose of truth) Jordan Maxwell, whose lies are insane, including multiple versions of his own personal history.
The amount of followers these people have is surprising, to say the least, seeing as they seem to condone critical thinking. People seem to be unwilling to think critically about their own views i think, when it comes to conspiracy theories.
I enjoy conspiracy theories a lot, better than mainstream movies but I would not call myself a conspiracy theorist as most of these dudes I come across are pretty extreme in their thinking where I just don't really give a fuck if there's aliens or not or who really runs the world, give me a good bedtime story and I'm happy.
Also ,I have secrets and do lie on occasion so I can't expect important figures to be saints
Well, i have quite a lot to say to this. I am one of those walking the line between being a full on conspiracy theorist and a healthy "believer" of the "normal" opinion. I talked to alot of people about alot of those theorys and i can say most of the people questioning events are full on stupid to mad, but i avoid believing the official statements just like them. I have a healthy basis for my disbelieve and i think most of the people questioning the process of "questioning events" are just like the other side of the scale full on stupid to mad.
So first why do i question the official statement:
In germany we live in a society who honors people who would in today standarts be considered conspiracy theorist, they disbelieved the intention of the state and the believes of society. Those people tryed to spead the word and inform people about whats really going on. Blind believing in the statements of the country leaders are considered a crime in some parts of german history, so that you might do evil by just believing what everyone else does believe. So i choosed for myself to never walk blindly in the world and question everything what might be considered facts. This is a reason we have a lot of people in germany being just like me not easy to convince. So authoritys might want to blind the people and throw wrong or misleading information in to satisfy the people minds and convince them of being "good". I want to have this NAZI card out of my hand firstly so that i dont have to come back to this over and over again. So if thats the first step of your thought process the world becomes much more complex and difficult to understand since you have no easy and totally rigt sources at your hand to build your opinion also you cant actually be sure about anything anymore. I think this is already enough to crack most of the "normal" people up becouse they dont know what to believe anymore. I on the other hand are able to live with that quite well and are a "healthy" disbeliever.
What kind of things do i question and why:
I question everything having a hughe impact on the following events of history as well as everything giving someone a hughe advantage about others or changing public opinion in favor of them or others close to them, for example events like 9/11, the moon landing, information about weapon of mass destruction... Or information about evil/good doing of organisations or countrys. If someone would say i just do it for the sake of good or the intention of "improving" the world i get highly suspicious. And i get the confirmation about being right much too often to question those thought processes. I quite need a lot to convince me that something is the one real "truth" and therefor are mostly on the search for it instead of choosing one fitting the best in my life.
I dont make my life easier with it so i dont see this argument coming toward me in any way and i dont get angry on people believing what they get fed by media or society, but i do feel sad for them and think they missed out a great opportunity to have a better understanding of things going on.
What is able to convince me and how is it done:
Things like the moon landing are proven right in my opinion but it took me a hell lot of informing and questioning to come to that conclusion, o watched the videos of believers as well as of those trying to disprove them. So it needs someone to question something first to disprove them afterwards becouse you can actually question nearly everything this process might take a while (a hughe respect to those doing this "disproving" of conspiracy theorist even when they think it is stupid) becouse this is done offten very sloppy and and with a hint of disrespect towards the doubts its quite hard to find very good educational information. The moon landing is proven becouse a lot of very good scientist invested a big amount of time and alot of experiments to confront and disprove those theories.
What do i regret to belive and why:
There are other events wich might sound just as stupid to you like the moon landing being filmed in a studio, lets dont take the most recent one (9/11) and focus on something else instead, like the landing/crash of aliens on this planet.
As i said i highly doubt everything giving a nation or organisation a big advantage over others is to doubt therefore if aliens would have crashed or landed they could give someone a hugeh technological advantage, if someone would admit they had contact with them they would be forced to share information with others and so they would loose some of the advantage, also they would need to explain themselfe how they handled the situation and might loose the trust and the support of the society, everything having a compareable impact on society would be doubt by myself as well.
So heres a little list of things i still doubt if any of you has a good video on them disproving conspiracy theorist there i would be pretty happy if you share them with me. -Invention of modern economic models. (as a system to enslave people) -Federal reserve Banking worldwide (a sytem to enslaves states as well) -Banking system overall (just a big scam on us) -Alien interaction / techhnology being implemented (i am 50/50 here and its too old to have a hughe impact on us) -9/11 (as a reasoning for going to war) (i dont belive it was a full on inside job, but i believe they even supported them on the way and let it happen, by not stopping them, to have a reason to go to war) -Rothshild organisation having a hughe impact on modern day politics and decistion making. (here i also doubt they are controlling everything) -Lobbyism doing moraly inexcusable things to society for profits. -People becoming enslaved by the rich. (by having more money they earned by us using against us) -Secruity mechanism are there to control people and prevent them from standing up and trying to reshuffle the system once again to make the world a better place. ...
How can society prevent me or us from making those assumptions: Letting those conversations be freely thrown into the pot and give them some respect disprove them not by saying the person having them is stupid or blinded, do it by proving shit with sience!
tl;dr
Its healthy to question things and its healthy to ask questions. If society doesnt adopt to them, those people just get fire for their thoughts and the problem wont be solved it will get worst.
Anyway have a nice day everyone and threat those people with a little respect. And sorry for the errors i try to improve my english every day but im a bid of a dyslexic
I'd say that, labelling theories under a " conspiracy " label in order to dismiss them is also biased.
Even if I don't agree with most of those theories, I find that questionning things and putting them to the test is always good.
Like in a very scientific way, it's reasonable to ask yourself, how can the World trade center collapsed at the free fall speed, which is a scientific fact. Some basic math point that out, and yes it involves that the towers somehow collapsed from bottom or at least from within.
Which leaves us with another scientific dilemma, how can the structure collapse from bottom or within when the strutural pillars where made from a very specific steel not supposed to melt anywhere near the fuel combustion temperature.
I find that fact scientificly bothering, I ain't saying the CIA is lying to us to protect the alien, just that something is fishy here.
Plus the fact that they recovered a passport made of paper in the crash site, but they couldn't find the flight data recorder supposed to resist pretty much anything.
There is nothing about "consipiracy" here, just scientific inconstencies leaving a room for other theories about those events.
And I think that it's good to keep an open mind when put in front of facts.
Could those pillars 've been made from a cheaper steel to reduce costs ? have the terrorists planted bombs in the building before the plane crashed? could those attacks be the work of a another group in order to engage war in the Golf.
No one knows,. But exactly as my view on religion, i'd say I'm agnostic, I won't pretend to know things or believe in things if I don't have strong evidence to back them up, until then, all theories have to be kept in mind and put to the test.
So heres a little list of things i still doupt if any of you has a good video on them disproving conspiracy theorist there i would be pretty happy to share them with me. -Invention of modern economic models. (as a system to enslave people) -Federal reserve Banking worldwide (a sytem to enslaves states as well) -Banking system overall (just a big scam on us) -Alien interaction / techhnology being implemented (i am 50/50 here and its too old to have a hughe impact on us) -9/11 (as a reasoning for going to war) (i dont belive it was a full on inside job, but i believe they even supported them on the way and let it happen, by not stopping them, to have a reason to go to war) -Rothshild organisation having a hughe impact on modern day politics and decistion making. (here i also doupt they are controlling everything) -Lobbyism doing moraly inexcusable things to society for profits. -People becoming enslaved by the rich. (by having more money they earned by us using against us) -Secruity mechanism are there to control people and prevent them from standing up and trying to reshuffle the system once again to make the world a better place. ...
The difference between you and the mainstream conspiracy theorists (Icke, Maxwell etc.) is that you are viewing these things separately. The fundamental flaw in many conspiracy ideas is that they try to link all shadowy organizations and evil goings on to one conspiracy, led by a small group of people.
as for
-Alien interaction / technology being implemented
I believe that the most likely explanation for theories that involve early intelligent alien interference with humans is that they are a kind of myth, symbolizing the development of the early rational human mind. Obviously there is very little proof either way, but i would go for the simpler, more sensible option every time.
As a scientist, I have run into my fair share of conspiracy theorist (with or without citation marks, as you prefer). Although of a sightly different flavour than the fake-moonlanding political one, I think the principle is the same. People loudly debating their beliefs that are radically different from the commonly accepted ones. I have since some time stopped trying to disproof their ideas (they've had a hundred people trying that already, I cannot say anything that will convince them more), and rather trying to kindly educate them on the subject, or failing that, stay out of the discussion.
What makes me continue to spend time on it is partially my perceived obligation as a scientist to educate the public, but more importantly a curiosity as to why these people insist over and over again, sometimes spending a significant fraction of their lives on these ideas, despite everyone telling them over and over again that they do not understand what they are taking about.
So I came to this thread hoping for some more insight in the subject.
At first glance at this thread, trying to apply the mindset in the OP to the people I've ran into, I get the answer that they continue to insist because they are just really that convinced that they are right. They have not only understood the specific subject at hand better, but they are also better at approaching problem in general, which is why they are having so much problem with the in comparison ignorant community.
However, that doesn't really help me much, but maybe I missed something. :/ I know that they are very convinced (about their approach being superior, and everyone else being ignorant to not see it), and that is essentially all I read from your OP as well. My question would rather be at a more emotional level: do you ever question yourself? Do you ever think that maybe YOU are the one having the flawed approach, and the officials (or how you prefer to refer to the other people not agreeing with you) got it right? How can you be so sure that you found something that many highly talented, intelligent and educated professionals have overlooked? I know I sometimes question if our model is really better than the model of the competing groups, and I am not always happy with where that thought process leads. I also know it is a very tricky path to go, with many ways to divert. I'll admit that I seldom spend much time actually considering the merits of the scientific conspiration theories though.
Maybe my question refer a bit more to the science flavour of "conspiration theorists" that I have been in contact with, but maybe you can give some insight anyways. Also nto sure what "university degrees (involving science/math/engineering)" exactly means, but that is fine. The science consipration theorists come from barely high school education, to completed masters (or sometimes even PhD, although much more rarely), so shouldn't matter much.
It seems from your OP that you view yourself as more scientific than the rest in some sense. Do you think the same is true for the people mailing me with their theory about how particle physics is all wrong?
Anyway, long post, and maybe not coherent all the way. Sorry for that. Cheers!
I believe that the most likely explanation for theories that involve early intelligent alien interference with humans is that they are a kind of myth, symbolizing the development of the early rational human mind. Obviously there is very little proof either way, but i would go for the simpler, more sensible option every time.
Yeah thats actually nothing i care about as well i just wanna show i have some "stupid" ideas as well and i am really not sure what to think but since it hasent any impact on my daily life i dont mind eather way :D
A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Sorry i usually refuse to talk about this since i "cracked up" more than one of my friends with it and i hope you dont go into fear or hatred from the point of doupt, it took me hell lot to still believe the world and humanity isnt evil all along so please just dont take it too serious if i raised the light of doupt in you.
If i dont and you think im just plain stupid im actually pretty fine with it :D
I'll try to give you some hints on what may be the reasons for your points you made, as I got a slight udnerstanding of how materials work etc.
On February 19 2013 20:49 CV-Mackh wrote: Like in a very scientific way, it's reasonable to ask yourself, how can the World trade center collapsed at the free fall speed, which is a scientific fact. Some basic math point that out, and yes it involves it somehow collapsed from bottom or at least from within.
Let's ask the question, what is free-fall speed? It is an steady acceleration with around 9,81m/s per second (at least here in GER) and it does not matter which mass is involved. What prevents a human (when jumping out of a plane) to experience a steady acceleration? Exactly, air resistance! Now you gotta put 1 and 1 together. If a building collapses, where is the air resistance to may slow it down? Exactly, there is nearly none, as the air gets pressed outside the building, which pretty much is the only "air resistance" there is. And as gases are choosing the easiest and shortest way when under pressure...
Which leaves us with another scientific dilemma, how can the structure can collapse from bottom or from within when the pillars where made from a very specific steel not supposed to melt anywhere near the fuel combustion temperature.
You dont need a temperature near the melting point to lose a deciding amount of stability. Those pillars are normally protected by an isolation, which protects the inner structure from heat. Steel (there are a shitton of different steels out there) are already losing a deciding amount of their attributes at 40% of the melting temperature. That's why there is an isolation protecting the pillars. But you can imagine what happens, if that isolation is just gone, sand-blasted by a plane. (which I doubt was taken into account when calculating the building)
Plus the fact that they recovered a passport made of paper in the crash site, but they couldn't find the flight data recorder supposed to resist pretty much anything.
You can't tell where that passport was in etc. I dont seea connection there. Hell, ppl die from mines and are blown to pieces, and the pic in their jacket is still there.
On February 19 2013 21:21 Eisregen wrote: I'll try to give you some hints on what may be the reasons for your points you made, as I got a slight udnerstanding of how materials work etc.
On February 19 2013 20:49 CV-Mackh wrote: Like in a very scientific way, it's reasonable to ask yourself, how can the World trade center collapsed at the free fall speed, which is a scientific fact. Some basic math point that out, and yes it involves it somehow collapsed from bottom or at least from within.
Let's ask the question, what is free-fall speed? It is an stead acceleration with around 9,81m/s per second and it does not matter which mass is involved. What prevents a human (when jumping out of a plane) to experience a steady acceleration? Exactly, air resistance! Now you gotta put 1 and 1 together. If a building collapses, where is the air resistance to maybe slow it down? Exactly, there is nearly none, as the air gets pressed outside the building, which pretty much is the only "air resistance" there is. And as gases are choosing the easiest and shortest way when under pressure...
In truth, it's much easier: it is a lie. The building didn't collapse at "free fall speed". Stop believing shitty youtube videos.
I'm a free thinker and don't want to bound my beliefs to a box or be molded by the TV. I'm not biased, I'm not reactionary, I'm rational, reasonable, hardly mislead, and most certainly not bigoted. Seeing as you posted all these bad traits I'd say you are a government shill like its been admitted and leaked that exist who's sole job is to make "conspiracy theorists" look bad and you certainly did that with your post.
I look at the statistics, history, documents, etc... and find out that the biggest liars are governments, most corrupt are governments, biggest unnatural killers of humans are governments, so I don't trust anything that known and certified liars tell me.
If you are a "real conspiracy theorist" you also doubt the conspiracy theorys, they could be thrown in to avoid to talk about the actual problems and push everyone having any doubt in the same pot wich makes them all look stupid. Pretty easy to avoid questioning like this all along.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
On February 19 2013 21:28 Chilling5pr33 wrote: If you are a "real conspiracy theorist" you also doubt the conspiracy theorys being thrown in to avoid to talk abou the actual problems and push everyone having any doubt in the same pot wich makes them all look stupid. Pretty easy to avoid questioning like this all along.
Correct. The problem is where you get communities of conspiracy theorists who all believe the same thing. What you find is that the most irrational and extreme forms of conspiracy theories are the ones that get picked up by the most people. To say that governments lie all the time is one thing. Its very much harder to find out what the truth actually is. To be honest, if there was a huge conspiracy going on it would not be so easy to find out what it was.
Psychologically, its pretty easy to see why people are drawn to these theories. Where there is missing information, people are naturally drawn to a single, all encompassing explanation. This is reinforced by the sense of community that these people feel through having the same beliefs and ideas (notice the obvious comparison). Being a critical thinker who wants to get to the truth and discover the facts about conspiracies is a far more lonely existence than being part of a conspiracy theorists group.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
That just makes it even more improbable. Many of the people working at NASA had extremely complicated jobs and are expert scientists in their field. You're basically saying that for the conspiracy theory to make any sense, about 50 people together were able to fool all of those experts and simulate the real situation for them, while at the same time making fake footage from the moon and streaming live.
It's so improbable that all the arguments against it happening suddenly become miniscule. You get to the point where actually going to the moon is easier than faking it.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
That just makes it even more improbable. Many of the people working at NASA had extremely complicated jobs and are expert scientists in their field. You're basically saying that for the conspiracy theory to make any sense, about 50 people together were able to fool all of those experts and simulate the real situation for them, while at the same time making fake footage from the moon and streaming live.
It's so improbable that all the arguments against it happening suddenly become miniscule. You get to the point where actually going to the moon is easier than faking it.
Yep i know i know i was smal and i was never sure but i thought it would be theoretical possible its a stupid thing to think and i agree, you try to talk to a person who died 10 years ago ;D
On February 19 2013 18:22 sc4k wrote: Yeah I unfortunately have to regularly interact with two people who are nice although they are conspiracy theorists. They are woefully ignorant of politics and the law. And attempt to educate them is dismissed as an attempt to convert them to live under the thumb of the man. Their entire belief system comes from unproven assumptions. They and their friends just make me laugh, because I can't believe how ignorant and silly they are, at the same time as thinking that I am the ignorant one. I mean they even try to lecture me on the law, something I studied, on things that I specifically studied and can point to the textbook or relevant case that will disprove what they are stating...and they still think that I am the ignorant one. Holy sugar...this sort of person is frustrating.
On February 19 2013 16:29 fight_or_flight wrote: [b]"Conspiracy theorists" are not a special group, they are simply responding rationally to their environment. Ironically, in my (biased) opinion, "non-conspiracy theorists" are the irrational ones.
I can tolerate quiet conspiracy theorists, but the evangelical ones really do piss me off.
Was living together with one, and he actually asked me to use a lan cable instead of wifi because of radiation. with our flat being about 300 m away from the frigging, huge ass television tower of Prague and constantly using his mobile
He also put a paperclip onto my laundry powder to contain the possibly-poisonous emanations from the bag.
If I had something to hide that was as insane as some conspiracy theories I'd change a few facts to make it seem false and put it on the internet along with 10 other conspiracy theories.
On February 19 2013 22:19 Rimstalker wrote: I can tolerate quiet conspiracy theorists, but the evangelical ones really do piss me off.
Was living together with one, and he actually asked me to use a lan cable instead of wifi because of radiation. with our flat being about 300 m away from the frigging, huge ass television tower of Prague and constantly using his mobile
He also put a paperclip onto my laundry powder to contain the possibly-poisonous emanations from the bag.
Yep the line is thin and stupid people with doubts are super annoying, i agree, but please try to disprove them instead of building up hate, and try to help them becouse they arent enjoying it either.
On February 19 2013 22:19 Rimstalker wrote: I can tolerate quiet conspiracy theorists, but the evangelical ones really do piss me off.
Was living together with one, and he actually asked me to use a lan cable instead of wifi because of radiation. with our flat being about 300 m away from the frigging, huge ass television tower of Prague and constantly using his mobile
He also put a paperclip onto my laundry powder to contain the possibly-poisonous emanations from the bag.
Yep the line is thin and stupid people with doubts are super annoying, i agree, but please try to disprove them instead of building up hate, and try to help them becouse they arent enjoying it either.
You've clearly not dealt with these kinds of people before. Telling them they're wrong or trying to argue with reason or logic or fact is just met by a brick wall of denial because they've spent years building up a paranoid narrative involving governmets or corporations or some entity conspiring against them and common people and they are one of the few who seems to be able to see it and that makes them special in their mind.
They won't allow you take that away from them because then they are just faced with the reality that they are not special, they are not smart and they do not understand the world.
At least those are the sorts of people who don't naturally grow out of it, I don't think I'd blame someone for falling for the kinds of youtube videos you see when they are young and impressionable with feelings of rebellion (ie teens) but normal people grow out of it or don't care enough to really take it seriously. Those still blathering on about this crap when they're well into their 20's or older are hopeless and the best solution is to just ignore them and hope they go pester someone else.
On February 19 2013 21:27 Gamer_Girl wrote: I look at the statistics, history, documents, etc... and find out that the biggest liars are governments, most corrupt are governments, biggest unnatural killers of humans are governments, so I don't trust anything that known and certified liars tell me.
On February 19 2013 22:19 Rimstalker wrote: I can tolerate quiet conspiracy theorists, but the evangelical ones really do piss me off.
Was living together with one, and he actually asked me to use a lan cable instead of wifi because of radiation. with our flat being about 300 m away from the frigging, huge ass television tower of Prague and constantly using his mobile
He also put a paperclip onto my laundry powder to contain the possibly-poisonous emanations from the bag.
Yep the line is thin and stupid people with doubts are super annoying, i agree, but please try to disprove them instead of building up hate, and try to help them becouse they arent enjoying it either.
You've clearly not dealt with these kinds of people before. Telling them they're wrong or trying to argue with reason or logic or fact is just met by a brick wall of denial because they've spent years building up a paranoid narrative involving governmets or corporations or some entity conspiring against them and common people and they are one of the few who seems to be able to see it and that makes them special in their mind.
They won't allow you take that away from them because then they are just faced with the reality that they are not special, they are not smart and they do not understand the world.
At least those are the sorts of people who don't naturally grow out of it, I don't think I'd blame someone for falling for the kinds of youtube videos you see when they are young and impressionable with feelings of rebellion (ie teens) but normal people grow out of it or don't care enough to really take it seriously. Those still blathering on about this crap when they're well into their 20's or older are hopeless and the best solution is to just ignore them and hope they go pester someone else.
Since everyone use to throw me into this pot with them i do. I have to argue for them as well becouse they do a great job in questioning everything im actually depending on them to find the truth. I am clearly closer to them than to some others and i just lost the fire to fight for it and i feel sad about it becouse i gave up on the public opinion as well as the goverments worldwide. No one wants to see hear or listen to the truth you can get pretty mad about that, and i had never any problem to talk to either side but both had problems to talk to me.
If you listen carefully you can still reach them and you can actually push both in the other direction i have about 4 friends who had big psycholocigal problems after i talked with them about those things. (2 killed themselve) I doubt it was only my opinion which made them mad but i believe the sorrounding reaction (disbelieve) was making them feel sad and alone. I dont have time to guide every single person after i opend theire minds to disbelieve and i doubt as well that i have such a hughe impact on people but what the following action were made me rethink to share my opinion with others.
And thats the real problem in my opinion. But having no solution at hand i shut up and drink my coffee. ;D
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
On February 19 2013 21:27 Gamer_Girl wrote: I look at the statistics, history, documents, etc... and find out that the biggest liars are governments, most corrupt are governments, biggest unnatural killers of humans are governments, so I don't trust anything that known and certified liars tell me.
The biggest liar is Lance Armstrong.
You say he didn't travel to the moon by bike then?
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
kwark i would love to see a mod read my post carefully i was (past) thinking they might have faked it and i had my reasons behind it i wanna give you a insight about it and therefore i stated my old believes.
Those are stupid but not as stupid as you might think and therefore i wanted to give you a insight, i thought the threat is there for that.
Damn sometimes you make me mad kwark ;D have a nice day
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
That just makes it even more improbable. Many of the people working at NASA had extremely complicated jobs and are expert scientists in their field. You're basically saying that for the conspiracy theory to make any sense, about 50 people together were able to fool all of those experts and simulate the real situation for them, while at the same time making fake footage from the moon and streaming live.
It's so improbable that all the arguments against it happening suddenly become miniscule. You get to the point where actually going to the moon is easier than faking it.
You don't even need to go down that line of thinking. The astronauts left stuff behind on the moon, they left reflectors that people on earth use to measure the distance to the moon, and we aren't talking about a select few who "say" they have done the experiment. Literally anyone with a good telescope and a powerful enough laser can do the experiment, including myself. A friend of mine works for a university, he once borrowed some equipment and took about 20 of us out in to the sticks and we spent the night bouncing lasers off the reflectors on the moon.
Now I'm sure conspiracy theorists will say that the reflectors weren't put there by actual humans but were sent by rocket to help keep the conspiracy covered up, but why would you do that? Thousands of people were involved in going to the moon, the TV signal was relayed from the UK (Jodrell Bank observatory) back to the US when Armstrong landed, so basically you are saying that those people were either involved or tricked. The only problem with that being that Jodrell Bank confirmed the source of the transmission as being from the moon. Even Russia, engaged in the space race against the US and in the midst of the cold war, acknowledged the achievement. If it was good enough for the Russians, its good enough for everyone else.
It would be so much easier to actually send people to the Moon, that faking it wouldn't be worth doing. There is no way you could keep it all under wraps, not to mention actually getting to the moon is pretty simple in space travel terms, all you need is a vessel and Newtons equations for gravity and motion. Having spent billions of dollars on a launch vehicle, how can anyone think they sent it up to the moon without any people on board? Why would you do that?
I know the OP didn't mention this stuff, but its a pillar of the conspiracy theorist and is the shining light as to why these people are bonkers. I know there are real conspiracies but one so massive as the moon landings or 9/11 being planned by the US government are so bonkers that even bonkers people don't subscribe to them.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
Yep, a few of my fellow students at leiden did it as well. Arguing against these theories often is like arguing against kent hovind: you don't even know where to start.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
That just makes it even more improbable. Many of the people working at NASA had extremely complicated jobs and are expert scientists in their field. You're basically saying that for the conspiracy theory to make any sense, about 50 people together were able to fool all of those experts and simulate the real situation for them, while at the same time making fake footage from the moon and streaming live.
It's so improbable that all the arguments against it happening suddenly become miniscule. You get to the point where actually going to the moon is easier than faking it.
You don't even need to go down that line of thinking. The astronauts left stuff behind on the moon, they left reflectors that people on earth use to measure the distance to the moon, and we aren't talking about a select few who "say" they have done the experiment. Literally anyone with a good telescope and a powerful enough laser can do the experiment, including myself. A friend of mine works for a university, he once borrowed some equipment and took about 20 of us out in to the sticks and we spent the night bouncing lasers off the reflectors on the moon.
Now I'm sure conspiracy theorists will say that the reflectors weren't put there by actual humans but were sent by rocket to help keep the conspiracy covered up, but why would you do that? Thousands of people were involved in going to the moon, the TV signal was relayed from the UK (Jodrell Bank observatory) back to the US when Armstrong landed, so basically you are saying that those people were either involved or tricked. The only problem with that being that Jodrell Bank confirmed the source of the transmission as being from the moon. Even Russia, engaged in the space race against the US and in the midst of the cold war, acknowledged the achievement. If it was good enough for the Russians, its good enough for everyone else.
It would be so much easier to actually send people to the Moon, that faking it wouldn't be worth doing. There is no way you could keep it all under wraps, not to mention actually getting to the moon is pretty simple in space travel terms, all you need is a vessel and Newtons equations for gravity and motion. Having spent billions of dollars on a launch vehicle, how can anyone think they sent it up to the moon without any people on board? Why would you do that?
I know the OP didn't mention this stuff, but its a pillar of the conspiracy theorist and is the shining light as to why these people are bonkers. I know there are real conspiracies but one so massive as the moon landings or 9/11 being planned by the US government are so bonkers that even bonkers people don't subscribe to them.
Sorry for asking but it was always only about the first landing on the moon didnt they left the mirror in a later mission? Its only about Apollo 11 in my opinion becouse USA lost every other race they really wanted to win that one against the russians therefore a motivation was there to fake it. Even when they could have done it but just needed 3 more month they might just fake it in fear the russians would might have a compareable plan on their hands. (wich as far as i know russian goverment wanted the USA make believe)
You making it quite too easy for yourself to throw that opinion out of the window from the very beginning.
I still believe tehy managed and congratulate the USA to have been the first to put a foot on the moon.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
Yep, a few of my fellow students at leiden did it as well. Arguing against these theories often is like arguing against kent hovind: you don't even know where to start.
Theres also a big part who belive there are "übermenschen" (superhumans) living inside the earth only possible to enter from the poles and the himalaya and they speak german are 2,5 meters in height (on average) and have super technology. They believe the germans were allys and that at the end of the war most german escaped to this insight world. They also believe the inside of earth is empty and has a big power generator in the middle wich makes it rotate as well at providing additional gravity for people living inside. They shoud be around 100 million of them living there...
Yeah there are litterally millions of those stupid ideas out there wich make rational thinking and questioning so super hard in today times.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
Every post you make, KwarK, brings a smile to my face. Or more like a smirk
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
Every post you make, KwarK, brings a smile to my face. Or more like a smirk
Same goes for me hope thats his plan and intention but when you are the one talked to its quite easy to get mad ^^
On February 19 2013 23:09 Chilling5pr33 wrote: Why do we even discuss this here?
Because this is exactly what this topic is about. Picking a mainstream common conspiracy theory and showing how dumb it is might just be the best way to indicate what conspiracy theories are all about.
If the OP want to make the case that being a conspiracy theorist makes you smart, he can't just ignore some popular conspiracy theories, he has to deal with them too. I'm not saying that OP believes the moon landing was faked, but if he wants to defend conspiracy theories as a concept, he has to defend that one as well.
On February 19 2013 23:09 Chilling5pr33 wrote: Why do we even discuss this here?
Because this is exactly what this topic is about. Picking a mainstream common conspiracy theory and showing how dumb it is might just be the best way to indicate what conspiracy theories are all about.
If the OP want to make the case that being a conspiracy theorist makes you smart, he can't just ignore some popular conspiracy theories, he has to deal with them too. I'm not saying that OP believes the moon landing was faked, but if he wants to defend conspiracy theories as a concept, he has to defend that one as well.
Nope thats the thing this opinion is plain stupid. If there are stupid christian belives do all christians defend all those theories? If there are stupid americans do all americans have to defend those opinions? Same goes for conspiracy theorys! We arent a club of people who have to agree on all other opinions of members of this club. We arent the vatican.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
That just makes it even more improbable. Many of the people working at NASA had extremely complicated jobs and are expert scientists in their field. You're basically saying that for the conspiracy theory to make any sense, about 50 people together were able to fool all of those experts and simulate the real situation for them, while at the same time making fake footage from the moon and streaming live.
It's so improbable that all the arguments against it happening suddenly become miniscule. You get to the point where actually going to the moon is easier than faking it.
You don't even need to go down that line of thinking. The astronauts left stuff behind on the moon, they left reflectors that people on earth use to measure the distance to the moon, and we aren't talking about a select few who "say" they have done the experiment. Literally anyone with a good telescope and a powerful enough laser can do the experiment, including myself. A friend of mine works for a university, he once borrowed some equipment and took about 20 of us out in to the sticks and we spent the night bouncing lasers off the reflectors on the moon.
Now I'm sure conspiracy theorists will say that the reflectors weren't put there by actual humans but were sent by rocket to help keep the conspiracy covered up, but why would you do that? Thousands of people were involved in going to the moon, the TV signal was relayed from the UK (Jodrell Bank observatory) back to the US when Armstrong landed, so basically you are saying that those people were either involved or tricked. The only problem with that being that Jodrell Bank confirmed the source of the transmission as being from the moon. Even Russia, engaged in the space race against the US and in the midst of the cold war, acknowledged the achievement. If it was good enough for the Russians, its good enough for everyone else.
It would be so much easier to actually send people to the Moon, that faking it wouldn't be worth doing. There is no way you could keep it all under wraps, not to mention actually getting to the moon is pretty simple in space travel terms, all you need is a vessel and Newtons equations for gravity and motion. Having spent billions of dollars on a launch vehicle, how can anyone think they sent it up to the moon without any people on board? Why would you do that?
I know the OP didn't mention this stuff, but its a pillar of the conspiracy theorist and is the shining light as to why these people are bonkers. I know there are real conspiracies but one so massive as the moon landings or 9/11 being planned by the US government are so bonkers that even bonkers people don't subscribe to them.
Sorry for asking but it was always only about the first landing on the moon didnt they left the mirror in a later mission? Its only about Apollo 11 in my opinion becouse USA lost every other race they really wanted to win that one against the russians therefore a motivation was there to fake it. Even when they could have done it but just needed 3 more month they might just fake it in fear the russians would might have a compareable plan on their hands. (wich as far as i know russian goverment wanted the USA make believe)
You making it quite too easy for yourself to throw that opinion out of the window from the very beginning.
I still believe tehy managed and congratulate the USA to have been the first to put a foot on the moon.
Why do we even discuss this here?
I'm summing up the entire series of landing in to one thing, having actually studied physics and being a massive NASA fan. Yes it was in later missions they put the reflectors but to say they faked the initial landing and then actually went there later is just as absurd, so simply by acknowledging the fact of the reflectors being there, you have to acknowledge the first landing. The US won the space race, its that simple. The Russians got to many things first but the race was to the moon and the US got there first, one of the things about a race is that it doesn't matter who gets to the half way point first, its about to makes it to the finish first.
Basically anyone can create a conspiracy theory, it is as easy as saying "hey did you hear? Obama is a muslim" and look how fast that one caught on. To say we didn't go to the moon is to basically negate the works of thousands of people across the world, not just those who worked for NASA but also the countless others who have worked in multitudes of scientific and engineering field over the last two centuries.
Conspiracy theorists are the same as people who believe in ghosts or god, despite all the evidence to the contrary, they still believe. No matter how many ways I debunk my best friends dad's theories about why we didn't go the moon, he will never change his mind. I have proven that we went, by any reasonable standard, a hundred times and he still won't hear any of it. So anyone who says "I was one of these people, now I am not" was never really one of them.
As a child i believed the moon was made of cheese, until I read a book and found out otherwise. That is the difference, believing something because you are uneducated about it doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist, still believing the conspiracy after you have educated yourself about it, makes you one.
I could even class myself amongst conspiracy theorists, I believe there is something about the JFK assassination that someone, I do not know whom, is keeping from the public. I do not think the government killed him or anything like that, but having seen multiple documentaries about the "magic bullet" and other such stuff and being largely reliant on such sources of information for my reasoning, believe that something is either being kept from the public or that the initial investigation was flawed. Perhaps I am just uneducated about the incident, if evidence could be shown to me that proves there was only 1 shooter and that the bullets were fired from the book depository, I would instantly drop by belief.... so again, I suppose I am not a true conspiracy theorist ;p
Why don't you take your superior way of logical thinking into a scientific field and see how smart you really are. I can't believe you think your smarter than others because you believe in conspiracy theories. If your post has any merit, I challenge you to make a contribution in any field of scientific research.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
Every post you make, KwarK, brings a smile to my face. Or more like a smirk
Same goes for me hope thats his plan and intention but when you are the one talked to its quite easy to get mad ^^
I find that whenever people get mad in an online debate, or well any debate really, it marks the point when they have exhausted all their carefully pre-arranged arguments that were supposed to make the ignorant plebs see the truth. And when this doesn't happen, and no more such arguments remain, anger or sulkiness is a common reaction.
I realise this thread has been fairly harsh at points, but it truly does strain ones patience when otherwise completely rational inquiry is pushed well past a reasonable limit. To claim those who accept commonly held and scientifically supported opinions are sheep/ignorant is an exceedingly good way to make yourself look rather dumb, not to mention highly aggravating to interact with.
On February 19 2013 23:09 Chilling5pr33 wrote: Why do we even discuss this here?
Because this is exactly what this topic is about. Picking a mainstream common conspiracy theory and showing how dumb it is might just be the best way to indicate what conspiracy theories are all about.
If the OP want to make the case that being a conspiracy theorist makes you smart, he can't just ignore some popular conspiracy theories, he has to deal with them too. I'm not saying that OP believes the moon landing was faked, but if he wants to defend conspiracy theories as a concept, he has to defend that one as well.
Nope thats the thing this opinion is plain stupid. If there are stupid christian belives do have all christians defend all those theories? If there are stupid americans are all americans have to defend those opinions? same goes for conspiracy theorys! We arent a club of people who have to agree on all other opinions of members of this club. We arent the vatican.
He is speaking about conspiracy theories in general. I'm not saying someone who believes the 9/11 conspiracy must defend the moon landing conspiracy. Just like a christan doesn't have to defend everything in the bible, but someone arguing that taking the bible literally makes sense, must.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
That just makes it even more improbable. Many of the people working at NASA had extremely complicated jobs and are expert scientists in their field. You're basically saying that for the conspiracy theory to make any sense, about 50 people together were able to fool all of those experts and simulate the real situation for them, while at the same time making fake footage from the moon and streaming live.
It's so improbable that all the arguments against it happening suddenly become miniscule. You get to the point where actually going to the moon is easier than faking it.
You don't even need to go down that line of thinking. The astronauts left stuff behind on the moon, they left reflectors that people on earth use to measure the distance to the moon, and we aren't talking about a select few who "say" they have done the experiment. Literally anyone with a good telescope and a powerful enough laser can do the experiment, including myself. A friend of mine works for a university, he once borrowed some equipment and took about 20 of us out in to the sticks and we spent the night bouncing lasers off the reflectors on the moon.
Now I'm sure conspiracy theorists will say that the reflectors weren't put there by actual humans but were sent by rocket to help keep the conspiracy covered up, but why would you do that? Thousands of people were involved in going to the moon, the TV signal was relayed from the UK (Jodrell Bank observatory) back to the US when Armstrong landed, so basically you are saying that those people were either involved or tricked. The only problem with that being that Jodrell Bank confirmed the source of the transmission as being from the moon. Even Russia, engaged in the space race against the US and in the midst of the cold war, acknowledged the achievement. If it was good enough for the Russians, its good enough for everyone else.
It would be so much easier to actually send people to the Moon, that faking it wouldn't be worth doing. There is no way you could keep it all under wraps, not to mention actually getting to the moon is pretty simple in space travel terms, all you need is a vessel and Newtons equations for gravity and motion. Having spent billions of dollars on a launch vehicle, how can anyone think they sent it up to the moon without any people on board? Why would you do that?
I know the OP didn't mention this stuff, but its a pillar of the conspiracy theorist and is the shining light as to why these people are bonkers. I know there are real conspiracies but one so massive as the moon landings or 9/11 being planned by the US government are so bonkers that even bonkers people don't subscribe to them.
Sorry for asking but it was always only about the first landing on the moon didnt they left the mirror in a later mission? Its only about Apollo 11 in my opinion becouse USA lost every other race they really wanted to win that one against the russians therefore a motivation was there to fake it. Even when they could have done it but just needed 3 more month they might just fake it in fear the russians would might have a compareable plan on their hands. (wich as far as i know russian goverment wanted the USA make believe)
You making it quite too easy for yourself to throw that opinion out of the window from the very beginning.
I still believe tehy managed and congratulate the USA to have been the first to put a foot on the moon.
Why do we even discuss this here?
I'm summing up the entire series of landing in to one thing, having actually studied physics and being a massive NASA fan. Yes it was in later missions they put the reflectors but to say they faked the initial landing and then actually went there later is just as absurd, so simply by acknowledging the fact of the reflectors being there, you have to acknowledge the first landing. The US won the space race, its that simple. The Russians got to many things first but the race was to the moon and the US got there first, one of the things about a race is that it doesn't matter who gets to the half way point first, its about to makes it to the finish first.
Basically anyone can create a conspiracy theory, it is as easy as saying "hey did you hear? Obama is a muslim" and look how fast that one caught on. To say we didn't go to the moon is to basically negate the works of thousands of people across the world, not just those who worked for NASA but also the countless others who have worked in multitudes of scientific and engineering field over the last two centuries.
On February 19 2013 23:09 Chilling5pr33 wrote: Why do we even discuss this here?
Because this is exactly what this topic is about. Picking a mainstream common conspiracy theory and showing how dumb it is might just be the best way to indicate what conspiracy theories are all about.
If the OP want to make the case that being a conspiracy theorist makes you smart, he can't just ignore some popular conspiracy theories, he has to deal with them too. I'm not saying that OP believes the moon landing was faked, but if he wants to defend conspiracy theories as a concept, he has to defend that one as well.
Nope thats the thing this opinion is plain stupid. If there are stupid christian belives do have all christians defend all those theories? If there are stupid americans are all americans have to defend those opinions? same goes for conspiracy theorys! We arent a club of people who have to agree on all other opinions of members of this club. We arent the vatican.
He is speaking about conspiracy theories in general. I'm not saying someone who believes the 9/11 conspiracy must defend the moon landing conspiracy. Just like a christan doesn't have to defend everything in the bible, but someone arguing that taking the bible literally makes sense, must.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
That just makes it even more improbable. Many of the people working at NASA had extremely complicated jobs and are expert scientists in their field. You're basically saying that for the conspiracy theory to make any sense, about 50 people together were able to fool all of those experts and simulate the real situation for them, while at the same time making fake footage from the moon and streaming live.
It's so improbable that all the arguments against it happening suddenly become miniscule. You get to the point where actually going to the moon is easier than faking it.
You don't even need to go down that line of thinking. The astronauts left stuff behind on the moon, they left reflectors that people on earth use to measure the distance to the moon, and we aren't talking about a select few who "say" they have done the experiment. Literally anyone with a good telescope and a powerful enough laser can do the experiment, including myself. A friend of mine works for a university, he once borrowed some equipment and took about 20 of us out in to the sticks and we spent the night bouncing lasers off the reflectors on the moon.
Now I'm sure conspiracy theorists will say that the reflectors weren't put there by actual humans but were sent by rocket to help keep the conspiracy covered up, but why would you do that? Thousands of people were involved in going to the moon, the TV signal was relayed from the UK (Jodrell Bank observatory) back to the US when Armstrong landed, so basically you are saying that those people were either involved or tricked. The only problem with that being that Jodrell Bank confirmed the source of the transmission as being from the moon. Even Russia, engaged in the space race against the US and in the midst of the cold war, acknowledged the achievement. If it was good enough for the Russians, its good enough for everyone else.
It would be so much easier to actually send people to the Moon, that faking it wouldn't be worth doing. There is no way you could keep it all under wraps, not to mention actually getting to the moon is pretty simple in space travel terms, all you need is a vessel and Newtons equations for gravity and motion. Having spent billions of dollars on a launch vehicle, how can anyone think they sent it up to the moon without any people on board? Why would you do that?
I know the OP didn't mention this stuff, but its a pillar of the conspiracy theorist and is the shining light as to why these people are bonkers. I know there are real conspiracies but one so massive as the moon landings or 9/11 being planned by the US government are so bonkers that even bonkers people don't subscribe to them.
Sorry for asking but it was always only about the first landing on the moon didnt they left the mirror in a later mission? Its only about Apollo 11 in my opinion becouse USA lost every other race they really wanted to win that one against the russians therefore a motivation was there to fake it. Even when they could have done it but just needed 3 more month they might just fake it in fear the russians would might have a compareable plan on their hands. (wich as far as i know russian goverment wanted the USA make believe)
You making it quite too easy for yourself to throw that opinion out of the window from the very beginning.
I still believe tehy managed and congratulate the USA to have been the first to put a foot on the moon.
Why do we even discuss this here?
I'm summing up the entire series of landing in to one thing, having actually studied physics and being a massive NASA fan. Yes it was in later missions they put the reflectors but to say they faked the initial landing and then actually went there later is just as absurd, so simply by acknowledging the fact of the reflectors being there, you have to acknowledge the first landing. The US won the space race, its that simple. The Russians got to many things first but the race was to the moon and the US got there first, one of the things about a race is that it doesn't matter who gets to the half way point first, its about to makes it to the finish first.
Basically anyone can create a conspiracy theory, it is as easy as saying "hey did you hear? Obama is a muslim" and look how fast that one caught on. To say we didn't go to the moon is to basically negate the works of thousands of people across the world, not just those who worked for NASA but also the countless others who have worked in multitudes of scientific and engineering field over the last two centuries.
No, you didn't study physics. You don't even know what physics is. You cant even possibly get into real physics material until you get past graduate school. Sitting in a high school class room or watching a youtube video doesn't constitute studying physics. Studying physics implies you have dedicated your entire life into the field and you have become a renowned expert and are making discoveries in disciplines that only a handful of other people in the world can even comprehend. You have no idea what the life of a physicist is like, and you certainly are not a physicist and you don't know anything about physics.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
That just makes it even more improbable. Many of the people working at NASA had extremely complicated jobs and are expert scientists in their field. You're basically saying that for the conspiracy theory to make any sense, about 50 people together were able to fool all of those experts and simulate the real situation for them, while at the same time making fake footage from the moon and streaming live.
It's so improbable that all the arguments against it happening suddenly become miniscule. You get to the point where actually going to the moon is easier than faking it.
You don't even need to go down that line of thinking. The astronauts left stuff behind on the moon, they left reflectors that people on earth use to measure the distance to the moon, and we aren't talking about a select few who "say" they have done the experiment. Literally anyone with a good telescope and a powerful enough laser can do the experiment, including myself. A friend of mine works for a university, he once borrowed some equipment and took about 20 of us out in to the sticks and we spent the night bouncing lasers off the reflectors on the moon.
Now I'm sure conspiracy theorists will say that the reflectors weren't put there by actual humans but were sent by rocket to help keep the conspiracy covered up, but why would you do that? Thousands of people were involved in going to the moon, the TV signal was relayed from the UK (Jodrell Bank observatory) back to the US when Armstrong landed, so basically you are saying that those people were either involved or tricked. The only problem with that being that Jodrell Bank confirmed the source of the transmission as being from the moon. Even Russia, engaged in the space race against the US and in the midst of the cold war, acknowledged the achievement. If it was good enough for the Russians, its good enough for everyone else.
It would be so much easier to actually send people to the Moon, that faking it wouldn't be worth doing. There is no way you could keep it all under wraps, not to mention actually getting to the moon is pretty simple in space travel terms, all you need is a vessel and Newtons equations for gravity and motion. Having spent billions of dollars on a launch vehicle, how can anyone think they sent it up to the moon without any people on board? Why would you do that?
I know the OP didn't mention this stuff, but its a pillar of the conspiracy theorist and is the shining light as to why these people are bonkers. I know there are real conspiracies but one so massive as the moon landings or 9/11 being planned by the US government are so bonkers that even bonkers people don't subscribe to them.
Sorry for asking but it was always only about the first landing on the moon didnt they left the mirror in a later mission? Its only about Apollo 11 in my opinion becouse USA lost every other race they really wanted to win that one against the russians therefore a motivation was there to fake it. Even when they could have done it but just needed 3 more month they might just fake it in fear the russians would might have a compareable plan on their hands. (wich as far as i know russian goverment wanted the USA make believe)
You making it quite too easy for yourself to throw that opinion out of the window from the very beginning.
I still believe tehy managed and congratulate the USA to have been the first to put a foot on the moon.
Why do we even discuss this here?
I'm summing up the entire series of landing in to one thing, having actually studied physics and being a massive NASA fan. Yes it was in later missions they put the reflectors but to say they faked the initial landing and then actually went there later is just as absurd, so simply by acknowledging the fact of the reflectors being there, you have to acknowledge the first landing. The US won the space race, its that simple. The Russians got to many things first but the race was to the moon and the US got there first, one of the things about a race is that it doesn't matter who gets to the half way point first, its about to makes it to the finish first.
Basically anyone can create a conspiracy theory, it is as easy as saying "hey did you hear? Obama is a muslim" and look how fast that one caught on. To say we didn't go to the moon is to basically negate the works of thousands of people across the world, not just those who worked for NASA but also the countless others who have worked in multitudes of scientific and engineering field over the last two centuries.
No, you didn't study physics. You don't even know what physics is. You cant even possibly get into real physics material until you get past graduate school. Sitting in a high school class room or watching a youtube video doesn't constitute studying physics. Studying physics implies you have dedicated your entire life into the field and you have become a renowned expert and are making discoveries in disciplines that only a handful of other people in the world can even comprehend. You have no idea what the life of a physicist is like, and you certainly are not a physicist and you don't know anything about physics.
I'm pretty sure that if you look up "physics" and "study" in a dictionary, you will see that his post makes perfect sense. You might have your own definitions on what "studying physics" mean, but that doesn't mean you should write condecending posts, it just makes you look like a dumbass.
Hell, I studied physics in elementary school, I still have the grades to prove it, so telling someone, especially someone you don't know, "No, you didn't study physics" is pretty ridiculous.
This thread made me want to check out the conspiracy theory websites all over the internet (I really wanted to slam my head against the keyboard, by the way). If you're well-versed in common sense, do not go there for your own safety. It hurts to read. A large part of the culture is basically cherry picking various articles insufficient amount of evidence and desperately attempting to use it to support your grand claim, which is already pieced together with other tiny pieces of information that only may or may not be related. If someone provides an overwhelming amount of evidence against your claim, that's the part where you say that evidence was planted by the government to cover up whatever they did. That's when you call your opponent SHEEPLE and then tell them that you hope they enjoy their trip to the FEMA concentration camp.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
That just makes it even more improbable. Many of the people working at NASA had extremely complicated jobs and are expert scientists in their field. You're basically saying that for the conspiracy theory to make any sense, about 50 people together were able to fool all of those experts and simulate the real situation for them, while at the same time making fake footage from the moon and streaming live.
It's so improbable that all the arguments against it happening suddenly become miniscule. You get to the point where actually going to the moon is easier than faking it.
You don't even need to go down that line of thinking. The astronauts left stuff behind on the moon, they left reflectors that people on earth use to measure the distance to the moon, and we aren't talking about a select few who "say" they have done the experiment. Literally anyone with a good telescope and a powerful enough laser can do the experiment, including myself. A friend of mine works for a university, he once borrowed some equipment and took about 20 of us out in to the sticks and we spent the night bouncing lasers off the reflectors on the moon.
Now I'm sure conspiracy theorists will say that the reflectors weren't put there by actual humans but were sent by rocket to help keep the conspiracy covered up, but why would you do that? Thousands of people were involved in going to the moon, the TV signal was relayed from the UK (Jodrell Bank observatory) back to the US when Armstrong landed, so basically you are saying that those people were either involved or tricked. The only problem with that being that Jodrell Bank confirmed the source of the transmission as being from the moon. Even Russia, engaged in the space race against the US and in the midst of the cold war, acknowledged the achievement. If it was good enough for the Russians, its good enough for everyone else.
It would be so much easier to actually send people to the Moon, that faking it wouldn't be worth doing. There is no way you could keep it all under wraps, not to mention actually getting to the moon is pretty simple in space travel terms, all you need is a vessel and Newtons equations for gravity and motion. Having spent billions of dollars on a launch vehicle, how can anyone think they sent it up to the moon without any people on board? Why would you do that?
I know the OP didn't mention this stuff, but its a pillar of the conspiracy theorist and is the shining light as to why these people are bonkers. I know there are real conspiracies but one so massive as the moon landings or 9/11 being planned by the US government are so bonkers that even bonkers people don't subscribe to them.
Sorry for asking but it was always only about the first landing on the moon didnt they left the mirror in a later mission? Its only about Apollo 11 in my opinion becouse USA lost every other race they really wanted to win that one against the russians therefore a motivation was there to fake it. Even when they could have done it but just needed 3 more month they might just fake it in fear the russians would might have a compareable plan on their hands. (wich as far as i know russian goverment wanted the USA make believe)
You making it quite too easy for yourself to throw that opinion out of the window from the very beginning.
I still believe tehy managed and congratulate the USA to have been the first to put a foot on the moon.
Why do we even discuss this here?
I'm summing up the entire series of landing in to one thing, having actually studied physics and being a massive NASA fan. Yes it was in later missions they put the reflectors but to say they faked the initial landing and then actually went there later is just as absurd, so simply by acknowledging the fact of the reflectors being there, you have to acknowledge the first landing. The US won the space race, its that simple. The Russians got to many things first but the race was to the moon and the US got there first, one of the things about a race is that it doesn't matter who gets to the half way point first, its about to makes it to the finish first.
Basically anyone can create a conspiracy theory, it is as easy as saying "hey did you hear? Obama is a muslim" and look how fast that one caught on. To say we didn't go to the moon is to basically negate the works of thousands of people across the world, not just those who worked for NASA but also the countless others who have worked in multitudes of scientific and engineering field over the last two centuries.
No, you didn't study physics. You don't even know what physics is. You cant even possibly get into real physics material until you get past graduate school. Sitting in a high school class room or watching a youtube video doesn't constitute studying physics. Studying physics implies you have dedicated your entire life into the field and you have become a renowned expert and are making discoveries in disciplines that only a handful of other people in the world can even comprehend. You have no idea what the life of a physicist is like, and you certainly are not a physicist and you don't know anything about physics.
I'm 29 and have a both an A level and a degree in physics. So yes i studied physics. I never, however, said I understand all of it. And your definition of what a physicist is, well its just ridiculous. There are thousands of working physicists in the world, many of whom don't work directly in research, the handful of people who make discoveries are not the only experts in their fields. I don't see Neil Tyson making discoveries and I think we can all agree he is an expert in his field, I never claimed to be an expert in the field either, I merely said that having studied it I was summarising the moon landings down to prove the achievement of the first.
I do have friends who are research scientists and never once has one of them ever told me that I "don't know anything about physics". They correct me when I misremember something, they remind me that I haven't dedicated my life to it like they have but never would they assume to tell me I know nothing about it, and they know me well. How you, who has no idea who I am or what I do with my life can tell me I haven't done what I have done...... well, that makes you an idiot.
Perhaps you are a physicist yourself? In which case, in comparison I probably know very little about physics. But I doubt anyone who talks like you did about what a physicist is, can possibly be one. Because you've basically stated that thousands of physicists working in non-research fields are morons who know nothing about physics and never in my life have I met anyone working in the scientific fields who would greet a fellow enthusiast with such vitriol.
On February 19 2013 23:41 DannyJ wrote: I think the average conspiracy theorist gives far too much credit to the creativity and competency of people/nations than they deserve.
Most of them fail from the onset, simply because the logistics that would be involved in most of the suggested cover-ups would be borderline impossible. It would include hundreds, sometimes thousands of independent parties maintaining strict secrecy over significant periods of time, often regarding world-view altering events. It just wouldn't happen.
As someone pointed out, it actually gets to a point where the suggested event in question, whether it's an alien landing, supernatural events, government genetic experiments or what have you, is in fact more likely than the subsequent cover-up.
Despite myself, I actually semi-enjoyed reading that! Although your description of a conspiracy theorist is so idealistic as to be utterly without merit. I have a lot to say about what you wrote, I'm just not motivated enough to spend the amount of time needed to gather my thoughts in text format.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
That just makes it even more improbable. Many of the people working at NASA had extremely complicated jobs and are expert scientists in their field. You're basically saying that for the conspiracy theory to make any sense, about 50 people together were able to fool all of those experts and simulate the real situation for them, while at the same time making fake footage from the moon and streaming live.
It's so improbable that all the arguments against it happening suddenly become miniscule. You get to the point where actually going to the moon is easier than faking it.
You don't even need to go down that line of thinking. The astronauts left stuff behind on the moon, they left reflectors that people on earth use to measure the distance to the moon, and we aren't talking about a select few who "say" they have done the experiment. Literally anyone with a good telescope and a powerful enough laser can do the experiment, including myself. A friend of mine works for a university, he once borrowed some equipment and took about 20 of us out in to the sticks and we spent the night bouncing lasers off the reflectors on the moon.
Now I'm sure conspiracy theorists will say that the reflectors weren't put there by actual humans but were sent by rocket to help keep the conspiracy covered up, but why would you do that? Thousands of people were involved in going to the moon, the TV signal was relayed from the UK (Jodrell Bank observatory) back to the US when Armstrong landed, so basically you are saying that those people were either involved or tricked. The only problem with that being that Jodrell Bank confirmed the source of the transmission as being from the moon. Even Russia, engaged in the space race against the US and in the midst of the cold war, acknowledged the achievement. If it was good enough for the Russians, its good enough for everyone else.
It would be so much easier to actually send people to the Moon, that faking it wouldn't be worth doing. There is no way you could keep it all under wraps, not to mention actually getting to the moon is pretty simple in space travel terms, all you need is a vessel and Newtons equations for gravity and motion. Having spent billions of dollars on a launch vehicle, how can anyone think they sent it up to the moon without any people on board? Why would you do that?
I know the OP didn't mention this stuff, but its a pillar of the conspiracy theorist and is the shining light as to why these people are bonkers. I know there are real conspiracies but one so massive as the moon landings or 9/11 being planned by the US government are so bonkers that even bonkers people don't subscribe to them.
Sorry for asking but it was always only about the first landing on the moon didnt they left the mirror in a later mission? Its only about Apollo 11 in my opinion becouse USA lost every other race they really wanted to win that one against the russians therefore a motivation was there to fake it. Even when they could have done it but just needed 3 more month they might just fake it in fear the russians would might have a compareable plan on their hands. (wich as far as i know russian goverment wanted the USA make believe)
You making it quite too easy for yourself to throw that opinion out of the window from the very beginning.
I still believe tehy managed and congratulate the USA to have been the first to put a foot on the moon.
Why do we even discuss this here?
I'm summing up the entire series of landing in to one thing, having actually studied physics and being a massive NASA fan. Yes it was in later missions they put the reflectors but to say they faked the initial landing and then actually went there later is just as absurd, so simply by acknowledging the fact of the reflectors being there, you have to acknowledge the first landing. The US won the space race, its that simple. The Russians got to many things first but the race was to the moon and the US got there first, one of the things about a race is that it doesn't matter who gets to the half way point first, its about to makes it to the finish first.
Basically anyone can create a conspiracy theory, it is as easy as saying "hey did you hear? Obama is a muslim" and look how fast that one caught on. To say we didn't go to the moon is to basically negate the works of thousands of people across the world, not just those who worked for NASA but also the countless others who have worked in multitudes of scientific and engineering field over the last two centuries.
No, you didn't study physics. You don't even know what physics is. You cant even possibly get into real physics material until you get past graduate school. Sitting in a high school class room or watching a youtube video doesn't constitute studying physics. Studying physics implies you have dedicated your entire life into the field and you have become a renowned expert and are making discoveries in disciplines that only a handful of other people in the world can even comprehend. You have no idea what the life of a physicist is like, and you certainly are not a physicist and you don't know anything about physics.
So basically almost nobody with a degree in physics counts as having studied physics? Wtf did they study, then?
The reason conspiracy theorists exist is they are incapable of critically responding to information. They never learned the definition of bias, they are unable to discern the quality of information and they believe a lack of information is hidden information.
Most conspiracies (and most governments) leak like a battleship fresh from a war. It is virtually impossible to keep secrets. Someone, somewhere will blab or screw up. The political process, certainly over here, is so transparently corrupt that it actually makes them kind of honest.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
That just makes it even more improbable. Many of the people working at NASA had extremely complicated jobs and are expert scientists in their field. You're basically saying that for the conspiracy theory to make any sense, about 50 people together were able to fool all of those experts and simulate the real situation for them, while at the same time making fake footage from the moon and streaming live.
It's so improbable that all the arguments against it happening suddenly become miniscule. You get to the point where actually going to the moon is easier than faking it.
You don't even need to go down that line of thinking. The astronauts left stuff behind on the moon, they left reflectors that people on earth use to measure the distance to the moon, and we aren't talking about a select few who "say" they have done the experiment. Literally anyone with a good telescope and a powerful enough laser can do the experiment, including myself. A friend of mine works for a university, he once borrowed some equipment and took about 20 of us out in to the sticks and we spent the night bouncing lasers off the reflectors on the moon.
Now I'm sure conspiracy theorists will say that the reflectors weren't put there by actual humans but were sent by rocket to help keep the conspiracy covered up, but why would you do that? Thousands of people were involved in going to the moon, the TV signal was relayed from the UK (Jodrell Bank observatory) back to the US when Armstrong landed, so basically you are saying that those people were either involved or tricked. The only problem with that being that Jodrell Bank confirmed the source of the transmission as being from the moon. Even Russia, engaged in the space race against the US and in the midst of the cold war, acknowledged the achievement. If it was good enough for the Russians, its good enough for everyone else.
It would be so much easier to actually send people to the Moon, that faking it wouldn't be worth doing. There is no way you could keep it all under wraps, not to mention actually getting to the moon is pretty simple in space travel terms, all you need is a vessel and Newtons equations for gravity and motion. Having spent billions of dollars on a launch vehicle, how can anyone think they sent it up to the moon without any people on board? Why would you do that?
I know the OP didn't mention this stuff, but its a pillar of the conspiracy theorist and is the shining light as to why these people are bonkers. I know there are real conspiracies but one so massive as the moon landings or 9/11 being planned by the US government are so bonkers that even bonkers people don't subscribe to them.
Sorry for asking but it was always only about the first landing on the moon didnt they left the mirror in a later mission? Its only about Apollo 11 in my opinion becouse USA lost every other race they really wanted to win that one against the russians therefore a motivation was there to fake it. Even when they could have done it but just needed 3 more month they might just fake it in fear the russians would might have a compareable plan on their hands. (wich as far as i know russian goverment wanted the USA make believe)
You making it quite too easy for yourself to throw that opinion out of the window from the very beginning.
I still believe tehy managed and congratulate the USA to have been the first to put a foot on the moon.
Why do we even discuss this here?
I'm summing up the entire series of landing in to one thing, having actually studied physics and being a massive NASA fan. Yes it was in later missions they put the reflectors but to say they faked the initial landing and then actually went there later is just as absurd, so simply by acknowledging the fact of the reflectors being there, you have to acknowledge the first landing. The US won the space race, its that simple. The Russians got to many things first but the race was to the moon and the US got there first, one of the things about a race is that it doesn't matter who gets to the half way point first, its about to makes it to the finish first.
Basically anyone can create a conspiracy theory, it is as easy as saying "hey did you hear? Obama is a muslim" and look how fast that one caught on. To say we didn't go to the moon is to basically negate the works of thousands of people across the world, not just those who worked for NASA but also the countless others who have worked in multitudes of scientific and engineering field over the last two centuries.
No, you didn't study physics. You don't even know what physics is. You cant even possibly get into real physics material until you get past graduate school. Sitting in a high school class room or watching a youtube video doesn't constitute studying physics. Studying physics implies you have dedicated your entire life into the field and you have become a renowned expert and are making discoveries in disciplines that only a handful of other people in the world can even comprehend. You have no idea what the life of a physicist is like, and you certainly are not a physicist and you don't know anything about physics.
So basically almost nobody with a degree in physics counts as having studied physics? Wtf did they study, then?
Dude, i spent three years at University in a physics class studying floristry. I don't know shit about the universe, but I can make a mean bouquet of flowers. Oh i learned a little bit about cosmology and quantum mechanics, but since I stopped my studies after uni, I obviously just learned how to arrange flowers.
And since matey boy knows so much about physics, perhaps he could summarise the Hubble constant and explain how you use it to calculate the age of the universe?
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
kwark i would love to see a mod read my post carefully i was (past) thinking they might have faked it and i had my reasons behind it i wanna give you a insight about it and therefore i stated my old believes.
Those are stupid but not as stupid as you might think and therefore i wanted to give you a insight, i thought the threat is there for that.
Damn sometimes you make me mad kwark ;D have a nice day
It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
On February 19 2013 18:19 Uncultured wrote: Aheh. I love how people are applying their own person definition of a conspiracy theorist to the op's post, which very clearly defines what he's talking about, and it has nothing to do with believing Elvis is alive but instead the nature of belief itself. Addressing the subject so casually in such a snide way makes me believe I'm the only one so far to actually read the OP in fullness. It was good stuff, I suggest ya'll go back and try to understand what he's saying.
People are annoyed at the condescending tone and hypocrisy these threads tend to bring along. It's presumptuous to even believe there's a right way to do anything, let alone the belief that people could do so. Why write a lecture justifying your world view when it argues to accept any and all possibilities?
Publicly confessing that you think you're pretty smart, it doesn't look very flattering.
OP's a fucking reptilian. they are making think rationally so we think its dumb (conspiracy) but its real lol. seriously though.... conspiracy theories cannot make consequent thoughts, sure there is always a political game of power and interest behind every action a government/multi-national company takes. but, there is a limit to the inherent "evilness" of these people. alot of people do bad things while thinking their actions are good. nuffsaid. going back with my reptile bros underneath the earth.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
That just makes it even more improbable. Many of the people working at NASA had extremely complicated jobs and are expert scientists in their field. You're basically saying that for the conspiracy theory to make any sense, about 50 people together were able to fool all of those experts and simulate the real situation for them, while at the same time making fake footage from the moon and streaming live.
It's so improbable that all the arguments against it happening suddenly become miniscule. You get to the point where actually going to the moon is easier than faking it.
You don't even need to go down that line of thinking. The astronauts left stuff behind on the moon, they left reflectors that people on earth use to measure the distance to the moon, and we aren't talking about a select few who "say" they have done the experiment. Literally anyone with a good telescope and a powerful enough laser can do the experiment, including myself. A friend of mine works for a university, he once borrowed some equipment and took about 20 of us out in to the sticks and we spent the night bouncing lasers off the reflectors on the moon.
Now I'm sure conspiracy theorists will say that the reflectors weren't put there by actual humans but were sent by rocket to help keep the conspiracy covered up, but why would you do that? Thousands of people were involved in going to the moon, the TV signal was relayed from the UK (Jodrell Bank observatory) back to the US when Armstrong landed, so basically you are saying that those people were either involved or tricked. The only problem with that being that Jodrell Bank confirmed the source of the transmission as being from the moon. Even Russia, engaged in the space race against the US and in the midst of the cold war, acknowledged the achievement. If it was good enough for the Russians, its good enough for everyone else.
It would be so much easier to actually send people to the Moon, that faking it wouldn't be worth doing. There is no way you could keep it all under wraps, not to mention actually getting to the moon is pretty simple in space travel terms, all you need is a vessel and Newtons equations for gravity and motion. Having spent billions of dollars on a launch vehicle, how can anyone think they sent it up to the moon without any people on board? Why would you do that?
I know the OP didn't mention this stuff, but its a pillar of the conspiracy theorist and is the shining light as to why these people are bonkers. I know there are real conspiracies but one so massive as the moon landings or 9/11 being planned by the US government are so bonkers that even bonkers people don't subscribe to them.
Sorry for asking but it was always only about the first landing on the moon didnt they left the mirror in a later mission? Its only about Apollo 11 in my opinion becouse USA lost every other race they really wanted to win that one against the russians therefore a motivation was there to fake it. Even when they could have done it but just needed 3 more month they might just fake it in fear the russians would might have a compareable plan on their hands. (wich as far as i know russian goverment wanted the USA make believe)
You making it quite too easy for yourself to throw that opinion out of the window from the very beginning.
I still believe tehy managed and congratulate the USA to have been the first to put a foot on the moon.
Why do we even discuss this here?
I'm summing up the entire series of landing in to one thing, having actually studied physics and being a massive NASA fan. Yes it was in later missions they put the reflectors but to say they faked the initial landing and then actually went there later is just as absurd, so simply by acknowledging the fact of the reflectors being there, you have to acknowledge the first landing. The US won the space race, its that simple. The Russians got to many things first but the race was to the moon and the US got there first, one of the things about a race is that it doesn't matter who gets to the half way point first, its about to makes it to the finish first.
Basically anyone can create a conspiracy theory, it is as easy as saying "hey did you hear? Obama is a muslim" and look how fast that one caught on. To say we didn't go to the moon is to basically negate the works of thousands of people across the world, not just those who worked for NASA but also the countless others who have worked in multitudes of scientific and engineering field over the last two centuries.
No, you didn't study physics. You don't even know what physics is. You cant even possibly get into real physics material until you get past graduate school. Sitting in a high school class room or watching a youtube video doesn't constitute studying physics. Studying physics implies you have dedicated your entire life into the field and you have become a renowned expert and are making discoveries in disciplines that only a handful of other people in the world can even comprehend. You have no idea what the life of a physicist is like, and you certainly are not a physicist and you don't know anything about physics.
You need to study language.
I sincerely hope you aren't a physicist. Your presumptions are disgusting and that kind of statement boggles my mind, are you implying you're a physicist, to what capacity? That you're better than him? What is your objective? Other than to sound like a bigot.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
kwark i would love to see a mod read my post carefully i was (past) thinking they might have faked it and i had my reasons behind it i wanna give you a insight about it and therefore i stated my old believes.
Those are stupid but not as stupid as you might think and therefore i wanted to give you a insight, i thought the threat is there for that.
Damn sometimes you make me mad kwark ;D have a nice day
It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
Lol, please dont assume stuff wich isnt real, the mirror wich was left behind was left behind at a later mission not apollo 11 to assume something is real becouse of stupid reasons is just massively idiotic as well kwark!
You would love to swing the hammer or close this wouldnt you?
It has struck me that conspiracy theorists are to some extent logically self-consistent. They have an entirely different set of assumptions about how the world/knowledge works than the general population, and so dialogue is not really possible. Your logic/information is considered suspect by them, so need not be heeded.
Direct argument fails because the initial assumptions (especially relating to what knowledge is trustworthy) are so far off.
Not to say that conspiracy theorists are necessarily good at arguing, they definitely have a fallacy epidemic. Still, it's a sort of bubble that rejects external information and seems to make sense given the sources of knowledge assumed trustworthy.
The problem with my conspiracy minded friends is that while I don't believe in their conspiracies, I try to be as open minded to their stuff as I can and try to read about it. But when I present the counter argument, a website, a documentary whatever, something that puts another light on their case, often another more plausible explanation, they never watch or read it. They say they are very open minded, while they are totally not. They refuse to even glance at other possibilities. It's that "my opinion is a fact" attitude that I dislike in them.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
kwark i would love to see a mod read my post carefully i was (past) thinking they might have faked it and i had my reasons behind it i wanna give you a insight about it and therefore i stated my old believes.
Those are stupid but not as stupid as you might think and therefore i wanted to give you a insight, i thought the threat is there for that.
Damn sometimes you make me mad kwark ;D have a nice day
It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
When you tell this to an antagonist in an argument, you lose all opportunity for influencing them. But that's not really your intent here, is it. We are allowed to vent
On February 20 2013 01:11 Zandar wrote: The problem with my conspiracy minded friends is that while I don't believe in their conspiracies, I try to be as open minded to their stuff and read about it. But when I present the counter argument, a website, a documentary whatever, something that puts another light on their case, another more plausible explanation, they never watch or read it. They say they are very open minded, while they are totally not. They refuse to even glance at other possibilities. It's that "my opinion is a fact" attitude that I dislike in them.
Both sides dont really give any credit to the other and insist often on false facts wich makes research super hard.
I'd love for someone to do a little research/digging into this, and tell me nothing fishy was going on there.
My point being, there is no question about fishy stuff going on all the time, everywhere, and I do think (hope :p) people are generally aware of this.
The problem starts when people hear the word "conspiracy" and immediately think about fake moon landings/aliens/lizard people.
Look up the word, no mention of lizard people or tinfoil hats as far as I can tell :p.
tell me were conspiracy comes in.
I can understand someone suspecting murder and theft of the disk. But something being fishy is no evidence for something happening. I'm very glad there are judges that see to that. The fact that it hasn't been reproduced gives also no evidence for the technology existing. There're hundreds of people who claim to have invented something. This one happened to die. What's the big deal?
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
kwark i would love to see a mod read my post carefully i was (past) thinking they might have faked it and i had my reasons behind it i wanna give you a insight about it and therefore i stated my old believes.
Those are stupid but not as stupid as you might think and therefore i wanted to give you a insight, i thought the threat is there for that.
Damn sometimes you make me mad kwark ;D have a nice day
It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
Lol, please dont assume stuff wich isnt real the mirror wich was left behind was left behind at a later mission not apollo 11 to assume something is real becouse of stupid reasons is just massively idiotic as well kwark!
You would love to swing the hammer or close this wouldnt you?
Sorry, who exactly is denying one moon landing but accepting the others? I didn't realise that was a thing, it'd be pretty retarded.
Everything people do has a reasoning behind it, it's impossible for them to transcend the logic their matter binds them to. We can only rationally deduce irrationality must exist.
So they say, that on the back side of the moon, there is a whole civilization of pink ponies, living on a big farm inside a glass dome. They've been there and reproduced ever since the times of ancient Egypt. How is this possible? Well of course the pyramids were built by aliens from outer space, who also happened to populate the back side of the moon with pink ponies, when they had time off during the construction of the pyramids. Also, NASA and the Russians have known this since the first space missions, who went to the moon, but they kept this information hidden in a safe in a secret base in the desert, called Area 51. Area 51 is the codename for the pony farm on the moon, because there are currently 51 ponies living there. NASA has been observing them for many years, extracting technological knowledge, which without, we wouldn't ever have been able to have iPhones, the Internet, the iPad or Super Mario. On top of that, Super Mario was modelled after Bob the Pony, which again, lives on the back side of the moon, fixing the toilets and baths for his pals.
I'm telling you, the government is keeping information about all of this sealed !
I'd love for someone to do a little research/digging into this, and tell me nothing fishy was going on there.
My point being, there is no question about fishy stuff going on all the time, everywhere, and I do think (hope :p) people are generally aware of this.
The problem starts when people hear the word "conspiracy" and immediately think about fake moon landings/aliens/lizard people.
Look up the word, no mention of lizard people or tinfoil hats as far as I can tell :p.
tell me were conspiracy comes in.
I can understand someone suspecting murder and theft of the disk. But something being fishy is no evidence for something happening. I'm very glad there are judges that see to that. The fact that it hasn't been reproduced gives also no evidence for the technology existing. There're hundreds of people who claim to have invented something. This one happened to die. What's the big deal?
An 8 kilobyte movie is a pretty hilarious claim. The .txt file containing the spoken dialogue would be larger than that...
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
kwark i would love to see a mod read my post carefully i was (past) thinking they might have faked it and i had my reasons behind it i wanna give you a insight about it and therefore i stated my old believes.
Those are stupid but not as stupid as you might think and therefore i wanted to give you a insight, i thought the threat is there for that.
Damn sometimes you make me mad kwark ;D have a nice day
It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
Lol, please dont assume stuff wich isnt real the mirror wich was left behind was left behind at a later mission not apollo 11 to assume something is real becouse of stupid reasons is just massively idiotic as well kwark!
You would love to swing the hammer or close this wouldnt you?
Sorry, who exactly is denying one moon landing but accepting the others? I didn't realise that was a thing, it'd be pretty retarded.
No idea what a hammer has to do with anything.
<tinfoil on>This picture brought to you from Arizona desert. <tinfoil off>
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
kwark i would love to see a mod read my post carefully i was (past) thinking they might have faked it and i had my reasons behind it i wanna give you a insight about it and therefore i stated my old believes.
Those are stupid but not as stupid as you might think and therefore i wanted to give you a insight, i thought the threat is there for that.
Damn sometimes you make me mad kwark ;D have a nice day
It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
Lol, please dont assume stuff wich isnt real the mirror wich was left behind was left behind at a later mission not apollo 11 to assume something is real becouse of stupid reasons is just massively idiotic as well kwark!
You would love to swing the hammer or close this wouldnt you?
Sorry, who exactly is denying one moon landing but accepting the others? I didn't realise that was a thing, it'd be pretty retarded.
No idea what a hammer has to do with anything.
You never read what i write do you? I never denied any moon landing. You sound retarded man you really do... Not saying you are but ignoring any explaination i give to you to insist on your first impression would be retarded. I explained how i thought it was fake 10 years ago. Im arguing for my 10 year younger self here who i believe is stupid as well, but you just not doing it right, Therefore you dont deserve any respect!
Or you insist on being a mod here to follow you blindly and accept everything you say as true and right wich i will never make!
I'd love for someone to do a little research/digging into this, and tell me nothing fishy was going on there.
My point being, there is no question about fishy stuff going on all the time, everywhere, and I do think (hope :p) people are generally aware of this.
The problem starts when people hear the word "conspiracy" and immediately think about fake moon landings/aliens/lizard people.
Look up the word, no mention of lizard people or tinfoil hats as far as I can tell :p.
What's fishy about it is how something which sounds and seems completely impossible was apparently "believably demonstrated" in a book, yet can't be reproduced because a floppy disk worth of a compiler was lost. Sounds about as likely as all the "infinite power" machines which are never ever proven to work.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
kwark i would love to see a mod read my post carefully i was (past) thinking they might have faked it and i had my reasons behind it i wanna give you a insight about it and therefore i stated my old believes.
Those are stupid but not as stupid as you might think and therefore i wanted to give you a insight, i thought the threat is there for that.
Damn sometimes you make me mad kwark ;D have a nice day
It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
Lol, please dont assume stuff wich isnt real the mirror wich was left behind was left behind at a later mission not apollo 11 to assume something is real becouse of stupid reasons is just massively idiotic as well kwark!
You would love to swing the hammer or close this wouldnt you?
Sorry, who exactly is denying one moon landing but accepting the others? I didn't realise that was a thing, it'd be pretty retarded.
No idea what a hammer has to do with anything.
You never read what i write do you? I never denied any moon landing. You sound retarded man you really do... Not saying you are but ignoring any explaination i give to you to insist on your first impression would be retarded. I explained how i thought it was fake 10 years ago. Im arguing for my 10 year younger self here who i believe is stupid as well, but you just not doing it right, Therefore you dont deserve any respect!
Or you insist on being a mod here to follow you blindly and accept everything you say as true and right wich i will never make!
You're arguing for your 10 year younger self, and KwarK is winning. Doesn't matter if you changed your mind/think your 10 year old self was stupid if you keep arguing for it and your arguments are being shot down. You can't say "I never denied any moon landing" when you are arguing for your 10 year younger self who DID deny the first moon landing but not the subsequent ones.
I was once a conspiracy theorist. I eventually stopped caring but then I read this book:
I then realized how ridiculous the things I had believed in were. I highly recommend this book to anyone. It focuses on several popular conspiracy theories but it's not a traditional debunking kind of book. It focuses more on the psychology behind why otherwise intelligent people come to believe in these things. Most importantly this book describes the dangers that arise when these kinds of theories begin to run so deep in a people that societies begin to act on them.
On February 19 2013 21:12 Chilling5pr33 wrote: [quote]
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
kwark i would love to see a mod read my post carefully i was (past) thinking they might have faked it and i had my reasons behind it i wanna give you a insight about it and therefore i stated my old believes.
Those are stupid but not as stupid as you might think and therefore i wanted to give you a insight, i thought the threat is there for that.
Damn sometimes you make me mad kwark ;D have a nice day
It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
Lol, please dont assume stuff wich isnt real the mirror wich was left behind was left behind at a later mission not apollo 11 to assume something is real becouse of stupid reasons is just massively idiotic as well kwark!
You would love to swing the hammer or close this wouldnt you?
Sorry, who exactly is denying one moon landing but accepting the others? I didn't realise that was a thing, it'd be pretty retarded.
No idea what a hammer has to do with anything.
You never read what i write do you? I never denied any moon landing. You sound retarded man you really do... Not saying you are but ignoring any explaination i give to you to insist on your first impression would be retarded. I explained how i thought it was fake 10 years ago. Im arguing for my 10 year younger self here who i believe is stupid as well, but you just not doing it right, Therefore you dont deserve any respect!
Or you insist on being a mod here to follow you blindly and accept everything you say as true and right wich i will never make!
You're arguing for your 10 year younger self, and KwarK is winning. Doesn't matter if you changed your mind/think your 10 year old self was stupid if you keep arguing for it and your arguments are being shot down. You can't say "I never denied any moon landing" when you are arguing for your 10 year younger self who DID deny the first moon landing but not the subsequent ones.
Well i dont argue that he was right i just told the arguments i had back then and he didnt made a propper point till now, you sound a little biased.
The points he is insisting on are just plain false: The mirror was plantet in a later mission than the first (wich is questioned the most), The argumends the doubters had were totally different we not even came there yet i just go step by step to the point i once reached.
Its pretty easy to take a shortcut and insist on being right becouse the other side is retarded its just not the way to avoid this oppinions overall. Its only a way to make them even stronger...
You actually all dont get my point and im fine with that im used to not be understand and i fear the truth might crack you all up
On February 19 2013 21:37 Tobberoth wrote: [quote] Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
kwark i would love to see a mod read my post carefully i was (past) thinking they might have faked it and i had my reasons behind it i wanna give you a insight about it and therefore i stated my old believes.
Those are stupid but not as stupid as you might think and therefore i wanted to give you a insight, i thought the threat is there for that.
Damn sometimes you make me mad kwark ;D have a nice day
It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
Lol, please dont assume stuff wich isnt real the mirror wich was left behind was left behind at a later mission not apollo 11 to assume something is real becouse of stupid reasons is just massively idiotic as well kwark!
You would love to swing the hammer or close this wouldnt you?
Sorry, who exactly is denying one moon landing but accepting the others? I didn't realise that was a thing, it'd be pretty retarded.
No idea what a hammer has to do with anything.
You never read what i write do you? I never denied any moon landing. You sound retarded man you really do... Not saying you are but ignoring any explaination i give to you to insist on your first impression would be retarded. I explained how i thought it was fake 10 years ago. Im arguing for my 10 year younger self here who i believe is stupid as well, but you just not doing it right, Therefore you dont deserve any respect!
Or you insist on being a mod here to follow you blindly and accept everything you say as true and right wich i will never make!
You're arguing for your 10 year younger self, and KwarK is winning. Doesn't matter if you changed your mind/think your 10 year old self was stupid if you keep arguing for it and your arguments are being shot down. You can't say "I never denied any moon landing" when you are arguing for your 10 year younger self who DID deny the first moon landing but not the subsequent ones.
Well i dont argue that he was right i just told the arguments i had back then and he didnt made a propper point till now, you sound a little biased.
The points he is insisting on are just plain false: The mirror was plantet in a later mission than the first (wich is questioned the most), The argumends the doubters had were totally different we not even came there yet i just go step by step to the point i once reached.
Its pretty easy to take a shortcut and insist on being right becouse the other side is retarded its just not the way to avoid this oppinions overall. Its only a way to make them even stronger...
You actually all dont get my point and im fine with that im used to not be understand and i fear the truth might crack you all up
We all know the mirror was planted on later missions. The point is that it's dumb to accept later missions (where the mirror was planted) without accepting Apollo 11, and that is what Kwark is arguing for.
On February 19 2013 21:41 Chilling5pr33 wrote: [quote]
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
kwark i would love to see a mod read my post carefully i was (past) thinking they might have faked it and i had my reasons behind it i wanna give you a insight about it and therefore i stated my old believes.
Those are stupid but not as stupid as you might think and therefore i wanted to give you a insight, i thought the threat is there for that.
Damn sometimes you make me mad kwark ;D have a nice day
It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
Lol, please dont assume stuff wich isnt real the mirror wich was left behind was left behind at a later mission not apollo 11 to assume something is real becouse of stupid reasons is just massively idiotic as well kwark!
You would love to swing the hammer or close this wouldnt you?
Sorry, who exactly is denying one moon landing but accepting the others? I didn't realise that was a thing, it'd be pretty retarded.
No idea what a hammer has to do with anything.
You never read what i write do you? I never denied any moon landing. You sound retarded man you really do... Not saying you are but ignoring any explaination i give to you to insist on your first impression would be retarded. I explained how i thought it was fake 10 years ago. Im arguing for my 10 year younger self here who i believe is stupid as well, but you just not doing it right, Therefore you dont deserve any respect!
Or you insist on being a mod here to follow you blindly and accept everything you say as true and right wich i will never make!
You're arguing for your 10 year younger self, and KwarK is winning. Doesn't matter if you changed your mind/think your 10 year old self was stupid if you keep arguing for it and your arguments are being shot down. You can't say "I never denied any moon landing" when you are arguing for your 10 year younger self who DID deny the first moon landing but not the subsequent ones.
Well i dont argue that he was right i just told the arguments i had back then and he didnt made a propper point till now, you sound a little biased.
The points he is insisting on are just plain false: The mirror was plantet in a later mission than the first (wich is questioned the most), The argumends the doubters had were totally different we not even came there yet i just go step by step to the point i once reached.
Its pretty easy to take a shortcut and insist on being right becouse the other side is retarded its just not the way to avoid this oppinions overall. Its only a way to make them even stronger...
You actually all dont get my point and im fine with that im used to not be understand and i fear the truth might crack you all up
We all know the mirror was planted on later missions. The point is that it's dumb to accept later missions (where the mirror was planted) without accepting Apollo 11, and that is what Kwark is arguing for.
Well its the MOST importand race in human history to win it by faking it is not stupid at all. If you are able to land on it but not now but in 3 month its not stupid at all to fake it.
Man im out have fun all living in this buitifull world of trust.
And for the record russians were super close to sending someone to the Moon as well...
I used to believe in conspiracy theories too; when I was younger and watched "loose change" so many things seemed suspicious, and I started to think it was all staged (i.e. 9/11).
But it was SO easy to dispel. Eventually, I made the choice that I think almost no conspiracy theorists make, and that is to actually look at the debunking websites and see what they had to say, even though at that point I was skeptical and a bit biased against them because I thought my beliefs were logical, and didn't want to see them falsified. And I found that almost every claim had no basis, and instead, had a logical, reasonable explanation. And instead of feeling a bit chagrined, I felt good because of how clear the debunker's reasoning and evidence were.
I don't remember the book now, but I remember it being something about how to think properly and the psychology of typical people. It said that most people don't use their intelligence correctly - often what they do is allow a pre-existing belief to form in their head, and they apply all of their intelligence to make it work (square peg in round hole), yet they never use their intelligence to analyze their fundamental belief.
I feel like that is happening with many theorists...and if I remember my conspiracy days correctly, the force against learning from the other side was a mix of: A) Gullibility B) Lack of applying critical thinking to my belief C) Getting caught up in the wonder and excitement of knowing "the truth", and feeling like a revolutionary.
It also happened with this guy "Stefan Molyneux" who is an anarcho-capitalist on youtube. But believing in anarchy is pretty much the same as being a conspiracy theorist, just because it has so many flaws when you look at it from a practical, historical basis. And when I questioned one "big-name" youtube anarchist on this, he said the world has fooled you, its all lies, and that it is possible. Basically, the conspiracy theorist answer.
You can see it in Stefan Molyneux's videos. He has the look and intensity of some kind of revolutionary, he is so caught up in his own rhetoric that his videos have become increasingly extreme, landing him (eventually) on Alex Jones' radio show. It is interesting to watch, how extremism feeds on itself and makes progressively more extreme claims. This may be what leads to those truly ridiculous theories about NASA faking the moon landing, or HAARP being an evil government weapon.
Its because he never questions his own beliefs. This is the problem with conspiracy theorists. They only use their brain to find ways to make it work, not to look at history or seriously study the "other side", because at this point their whole identity is that of being an anarchist, or a truther, etc. And at that point its too late; just like being a scientologist, you're lost, until one day things get so bad that you wake up and realize your mistake.
cant say i fully agree with what OP describes as a conspiracy theorist. my experience was quite different and i would describe it as more a "breaking free" of the predominant paradigm. For example, i want to see conclusive evidence for something to come to a conclusion, that is how i entered the world of "conspiracy" in the first place through investigating to the fullest and being left no other possible explanation.
you cant also describe all CT in the same light. i dont touch or talk about CT's that have no conclusive evidence to make a judgment on, but i do explore what is being said. I would also say that it is true that for some of the conspiracy theories to be true there would have to be a global conspiracy. without getting into it i feel i have seen enough evidence to support a western/european conspiracy.
being a conspiracy theorist for many i believe is just simply looking at the official story, finding the holes and proving that the official story is impossible and leaving it at that, sometimes what actually happened can be gleaned but for the most part it is speculation.
i do find this statement to be true;
"Truth is not a right; it's a great privilege only gained by a few through hard work and brutal self honesty. It's immature to expect things to be proven to you. When one recognizes his abject ignorance, truth seeking then becomes a desperation. Instead of asking something to be proven to him, the ignorant should seek out those who he suspects know more than him and beg to be taught. Only those who hold unquestioned premises have the luxury of taking a passive role, everyone else must either take an active role or choose to be ignorant."
On February 19 2013 22:57 KwarK wrote: [quote] Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
kwark i would love to see a mod read my post carefully i was (past) thinking they might have faked it and i had my reasons behind it i wanna give you a insight about it and therefore i stated my old believes.
Those are stupid but not as stupid as you might think and therefore i wanted to give you a insight, i thought the threat is there for that.
Damn sometimes you make me mad kwark ;D have a nice day
It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
Lol, please dont assume stuff wich isnt real the mirror wich was left behind was left behind at a later mission not apollo 11 to assume something is real becouse of stupid reasons is just massively idiotic as well kwark!
You would love to swing the hammer or close this wouldnt you?
Sorry, who exactly is denying one moon landing but accepting the others? I didn't realise that was a thing, it'd be pretty retarded.
No idea what a hammer has to do with anything.
You never read what i write do you? I never denied any moon landing. You sound retarded man you really do... Not saying you are but ignoring any explaination i give to you to insist on your first impression would be retarded. I explained how i thought it was fake 10 years ago. Im arguing for my 10 year younger self here who i believe is stupid as well, but you just not doing it right, Therefore you dont deserve any respect!
Or you insist on being a mod here to follow you blindly and accept everything you say as true and right wich i will never make!
You're arguing for your 10 year younger self, and KwarK is winning. Doesn't matter if you changed your mind/think your 10 year old self was stupid if you keep arguing for it and your arguments are being shot down. You can't say "I never denied any moon landing" when you are arguing for your 10 year younger self who DID deny the first moon landing but not the subsequent ones.
Well i dont argue that he was right i just told the arguments i had back then and he didnt made a propper point till now, you sound a little biased.
The points he is insisting on are just plain false: The mirror was plantet in a later mission than the first (wich is questioned the most), The argumends the doubters had were totally different we not even came there yet i just go step by step to the point i once reached.
Its pretty easy to take a shortcut and insist on being right becouse the other side is retarded its just not the way to avoid this oppinions overall. Its only a way to make them even stronger...
You actually all dont get my point and im fine with that im used to not be understand and i fear the truth might crack you all up
We all know the mirror was planted on later missions. The point is that it's dumb to accept later missions (where the mirror was planted) without accepting Apollo 11, and that is what Kwark is arguing for.
Well its the MOST importand race in human history to win it by faking it is not stupid at all. If you are able to land on it but not now but in 3 month its not stupid at all to fake it.
Man im out have fun all living in this buitifull world of trust.
And for the record russians were super close to sending someone to the Moon as well...
As we have already covered, faking the moon landing is a giganormous project. Not that it's possible in the first place, but to go through with such a ridiculous project 3 months from launch?
This is a perfect example of the problems of conspiracy theories, coming up with ridiculous premises just to make an idea which is already ridiculous work out when holes are found.
On February 20 2013 01:49 radscorpion9 wrote: I used to believe in conspiracy theories too; when I was younger and watched "loose change" so many things seemed suspicious, and I started to think it was all staged (i.e. 9/11).
But it was SO easy to dispel. Eventually, I made the choice that I think almost no conspiracy theorists make, and that is to actually look at the debunking websites and see what they had to say, even though at that point I was skeptical and a bit biased against them because I thought my beliefs were logical, and didn't want to see them falsified. And I found that almost every claim had no basis, and instead, had a logical, reasonable explanation. And instead of feeling a bit chagrined, I felt good because of how clear the debunker's reasoning and evidence were.
I don't remember the book now, but I remember it being something about how to think properly and the psychology of typical people. It said that most people don't use their intelligence correctly - often what they do is allow a pre-existing belief to form in their head, and they apply all of their intelligence to make it work (square peg in round hole), yet they never use their intelligence to analyze their fundamental belief.
I feel like that is happening with many theorists...and if I remember my conspiracy days correctly, the force against learning from the other side was a mix of: A) Gullibility B) Lack of applying critical thinking to my belief C) Getting caught up in the wonder and excitement of knowing "the truth", and feeling like a revolutionary.
It also happened with this guy "Stefan Molyneux" who is an anarcho-capitalist on youtube. But believing in anarchy is pretty much the same as being a conspiracy theorist, just because it has so many flaws when you look at it from a practical, historical basis. And when I questioned one "big-name" youtube anarchist on this, he said the world has fooled you, its all lies, and that it is possible. Basically, the conspiracy theorist answer.
You can see it in Stefan Molyneux's videos. He has the look and intensity of some kind of revolutionary, he is so caught up in his own rhetoric that his videos have become increasingly extreme, landing him (eventually) on Alex Jones' radio show. It is interesting to watch, how extremism feeds on itself and makes progressively more extreme claims. This may be what leads to those truly ridiculous theories about NASA faking the moon landing, or HAARP being an evil government weapon.
Its because he never questions his own beliefs. This is the problem with conspiracy theorists. They only use their brain to find ways to make it work, not to look at history or seriously study the "other side", because at this point their whole identity is that of being an anarchist, or a truther, etc. And at that point its too late, just like being a scientologist, you're lost.
Its better on the other side i really enjoy it as well but still i took something from there with me and thats when you have doubts you schould check every possible recource avaible and try to actually not be biased wich is a SUPER diffiult task.
I dont believe any of this theorys i get a headache from visiting those sites, it feels like they get paid for it (and they do). Its all about money in this buisness as well like in every other buisnes thats how the world works.
On February 19 2013 22:57 KwarK wrote: [quote] Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
kwark i would love to see a mod read my post carefully i was (past) thinking they might have faked it and i had my reasons behind it i wanna give you a insight about it and therefore i stated my old believes.
Those are stupid but not as stupid as you might think and therefore i wanted to give you a insight, i thought the threat is there for that.
Damn sometimes you make me mad kwark ;D have a nice day
It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
Lol, please dont assume stuff wich isnt real the mirror wich was left behind was left behind at a later mission not apollo 11 to assume something is real becouse of stupid reasons is just massively idiotic as well kwark!
You would love to swing the hammer or close this wouldnt you?
Sorry, who exactly is denying one moon landing but accepting the others? I didn't realise that was a thing, it'd be pretty retarded.
No idea what a hammer has to do with anything.
You never read what i write do you? I never denied any moon landing. You sound retarded man you really do... Not saying you are but ignoring any explaination i give to you to insist on your first impression would be retarded. I explained how i thought it was fake 10 years ago. Im arguing for my 10 year younger self here who i believe is stupid as well, but you just not doing it right, Therefore you dont deserve any respect!
Or you insist on being a mod here to follow you blindly and accept everything you say as true and right wich i will never make!
You're arguing for your 10 year younger self, and KwarK is winning. Doesn't matter if you changed your mind/think your 10 year old self was stupid if you keep arguing for it and your arguments are being shot down. You can't say "I never denied any moon landing" when you are arguing for your 10 year younger self who DID deny the first moon landing but not the subsequent ones.
Well i dont argue that he was right i just told the arguments i had back then and he didnt made a propper point till now, you sound a little biased.
The points he is insisting on are just plain false: The mirror was plantet in a later mission than the first (wich is questioned the most), The argumends the doubters had were totally different we not even came there yet i just go step by step to the point i once reached.
Its pretty easy to take a shortcut and insist on being right becouse the other side is retarded its just not the way to avoid this oppinions overall. Its only a way to make them even stronger...
You actually all dont get my point and im fine with that im used to not be understand and i fear the truth might crack you all up
We all know the mirror was planted on later missions. The point is that it's dumb to accept later missions (where the mirror was planted) without accepting Apollo 11, and that is what Kwark is arguing for.
Well its the MOST importand race in human history to win it by faking it is not stupid at all. If you are able to land on it but not now but in 3 month its not stupid at all to fake it.
Man im out have fun all living in this buitifull world of trust.
And for the record russians were super close to sending someone to the Moon as well...
Well but your edit showcases the whole problem with the US vs USSR thing: The Russians (and no other nation) were ever to land on the moon. Also all the deep space missions were "made in the US". No other nation has accomplished such a feat but the US repeatedly showed they were capable of such a mission.
The USSR didn't got 2nd place, they never finished.
But back to your conspiracy thing: The russians surely were listening to the radio and detecting the signals (as were others). So they sure would have disclosed the fraud. (But only if they really were enemys and not both controlled by the Bilderbergers. . . .)
On February 19 2013 22:59 Chilling5pr33 wrote: [quote] kwark i would love to see a mod read my post carefully i was (past) thinking they might have faked it and i had my reasons behind it i wanna give you a insight about it and therefore i stated my old believes.
Those are stupid but not as stupid as you might think and therefore i wanted to give you a insight, i thought the threat is there for that.
Damn sometimes you make me mad kwark ;D have a nice day
It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
Lol, please dont assume stuff wich isnt real the mirror wich was left behind was left behind at a later mission not apollo 11 to assume something is real becouse of stupid reasons is just massively idiotic as well kwark!
You would love to swing the hammer or close this wouldnt you?
Sorry, who exactly is denying one moon landing but accepting the others? I didn't realise that was a thing, it'd be pretty retarded.
No idea what a hammer has to do with anything.
You never read what i write do you? I never denied any moon landing. You sound retarded man you really do... Not saying you are but ignoring any explaination i give to you to insist on your first impression would be retarded. I explained how i thought it was fake 10 years ago. Im arguing for my 10 year younger self here who i believe is stupid as well, but you just not doing it right, Therefore you dont deserve any respect!
Or you insist on being a mod here to follow you blindly and accept everything you say as true and right wich i will never make!
You're arguing for your 10 year younger self, and KwarK is winning. Doesn't matter if you changed your mind/think your 10 year old self was stupid if you keep arguing for it and your arguments are being shot down. You can't say "I never denied any moon landing" when you are arguing for your 10 year younger self who DID deny the first moon landing but not the subsequent ones.
Well i dont argue that he was right i just told the arguments i had back then and he didnt made a propper point till now, you sound a little biased.
The points he is insisting on are just plain false: The mirror was plantet in a later mission than the first (wich is questioned the most), The argumends the doubters had were totally different we not even came there yet i just go step by step to the point i once reached.
Its pretty easy to take a shortcut and insist on being right becouse the other side is retarded its just not the way to avoid this oppinions overall. Its only a way to make them even stronger...
You actually all dont get my point and im fine with that im used to not be understand and i fear the truth might crack you all up
We all know the mirror was planted on later missions. The point is that it's dumb to accept later missions (where the mirror was planted) without accepting Apollo 11, and that is what Kwark is arguing for.
Well its the MOST importand race in human history to win it by faking it is not stupid at all. If you are able to land on it but not now but in 3 month its not stupid at all to fake it.
Man im out have fun all living in this buitifull world of trust.
And for the record russians were super close to sending someone to the Moon as well...
Well but your edit showcases the whole problem with the US vs USSR thing: The Russians (and no other nation) were ever to land on the moon. Also all the deep space missions were "made in the US". No other nation has accomplished such a feat but the US repeatedly showed they were capable of such a mission.
The USSR didn't got 2nd place, they never finished.
But back to your conspiracy thing: The russians surely were listening to the radio and detecting the signals (as were others). So they sure would have disclosed the fraud. (But only if they really were enemys and not both controlled by the Bilderbergers. . . .)
What i really believe is that the russians, while self not being able to land there, were trying to at least make it as expensive and recource intensive for the US to reach the moon they did so by faking data that they were pretty close to landing while abandoning the project long ago to save recources and money. The US feeling the pressure might have made something stupid like faking the last actual landing. The calculations the landing itself was a MEGA difficult task and just one little part not functioning properly would have put the whole mission and the lifes of the astronauts at risk. I would prefer the US to fake the landing than let see millions on earth how those brave man die live in TV.
On February 20 2013 01:53 Vivax wrote: "Don't you believe our own government would say they've been attacked by the Poles to have a casus belli?" "Nah man, that's just conspiracy theories"
-German citizen around 1939
Consider it an anecdote. A lot of theories are so full of shit that the plausible ones get labeled as conspiracies and lost in that blob.
Since you are from Italy, shouldn't you mention Giuseppe Gulotta, which is a real conspiracy? (Most likely)
On February 20 2013 01:53 Vivax wrote: "Don't you believe our own government would say they've been attacked by the Poles to have a casus belli?" "Nah man, that's just conspiracy theories"
-German citizen around 1939
Consider it an anecdote. A lot of theories are so full of shit that the plausible ones get labeled as conspiracies and lost in that blob.
this i find to be the main problem surrounding the idea of conspiracy theories. if its against the official narrative it get automatically labelled a conspiracy theory along with lizard men, fake moon landings, etc...
there are many conspiracy theories out there with little to no merit and due to this people will automatically dismiss legitimate conspiracy theories out there that have very strong supporting evidence.
On February 19 2013 21:09 Tobberoth wrote: A conspiracy theorist basically say "I could believe X, or I could believe Y. X if FAR more probable, so I'll believe Y". Which sounds quite irrational IMO.
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
That just makes it even more improbable. Many of the people working at NASA had extremely complicated jobs and are expert scientists in their field. You're basically saying that for the conspiracy theory to make any sense, about 50 people together were able to fool all of those experts and simulate the real situation for them, while at the same time making fake footage from the moon and streaming live.
It's so improbable that all the arguments against it happening suddenly become miniscule. You get to the point where actually going to the moon is easier than faking it.
You don't even need to go down that line of thinking. The astronauts left stuff behind on the moon, they left reflectors that people on earth use to measure the distance to the moon, and we aren't talking about a select few who "say" they have done the experiment. Literally anyone with a good telescope and a powerful enough laser can do the experiment, including myself. A friend of mine works for a university, he once borrowed some equipment and took about 20 of us out in to the sticks and we spent the night bouncing lasers off the reflectors on the moon.
Now I'm sure conspiracy theorists will say that the reflectors weren't put there by actual humans but were sent by rocket to help keep the conspiracy covered up, but why would you do that? Thousands of people were involved in going to the moon, the TV signal was relayed from the UK (Jodrell Bank observatory) back to the US when Armstrong landed, so basically you are saying that those people were either involved or tricked. The only problem with that being that Jodrell Bank confirmed the source of the transmission as being from the moon. Even Russia, engaged in the space race against the US and in the midst of the cold war, acknowledged the achievement. If it was good enough for the Russians, its good enough for everyone else.
It would be so much easier to actually send people to the Moon, that faking it wouldn't be worth doing. There is no way you could keep it all under wraps, not to mention actually getting to the moon is pretty simple in space travel terms, all you need is a vessel and Newtons equations for gravity and motion. Having spent billions of dollars on a launch vehicle, how can anyone think they sent it up to the moon without any people on board? Why would you do that?
I know the OP didn't mention this stuff, but its a pillar of the conspiracy theorist and is the shining light as to why these people are bonkers. I know there are real conspiracies but one so massive as the moon landings or 9/11 being planned by the US government are so bonkers that even bonkers people don't subscribe to them.
Sorry for asking but it was always only about the first landing on the moon didnt they left the mirror in a later mission? Its only about Apollo 11 in my opinion becouse USA lost every other race they really wanted to win that one against the russians therefore a motivation was there to fake it. Even when they could have done it but just needed 3 more month they might just fake it in fear the russians would might have a compareable plan on their hands. (wich as far as i know russian goverment wanted the USA make believe)
You making it quite too easy for yourself to throw that opinion out of the window from the very beginning.
I still believe tehy managed and congratulate the USA to have been the first to put a foot on the moon.
Why do we even discuss this here?
I'm summing up the entire series of landing in to one thing, having actually studied physics and being a massive NASA fan. Yes it was in later missions they put the reflectors but to say they faked the initial landing and then actually went there later is just as absurd, so simply by acknowledging the fact of the reflectors being there, you have to acknowledge the first landing. The US won the space race, its that simple. The Russians got to many things first but the race was to the moon and the US got there first, one of the things about a race is that it doesn't matter who gets to the half way point first, its about to makes it to the finish first.
Basically anyone can create a conspiracy theory, it is as easy as saying "hey did you hear? Obama is a muslim" and look how fast that one caught on. To say we didn't go to the moon is to basically negate the works of thousands of people across the world, not just those who worked for NASA but also the countless others who have worked in multitudes of scientific and engineering field over the last two centuries.
No, you didn't study physics. You don't even know what physics is. You cant even possibly get into real physics material until you get past graduate school. Sitting in a high school class room or watching a youtube video doesn't constitute studying physics. Studying physics implies you have dedicated your entire life into the field and you have become a renowned expert and are making discoveries in disciplines that only a handful of other people in the world can even comprehend. You have no idea what the life of a physicist is like, and you certainly are not a physicist and you don't know anything about physics.
You need to study language.
I sincerely hope you aren't a physicist. Your presumptions are disgusting and that kind of statement boggles my mind, are you implying you're a physicist, to what capacity? That you're better than him? What is your objective? Other than to sound like a bigot.
Your post is infuriating.
Notice how since telling me I didn't study physics, I replied stating that I had studied physics to degree level and how his post was ridiculous, as have a couple others and he has not been back to respond? The hallmark of an inferior intellect. "I'll make a statement that is utterly ridiculous and then not defend it because I can't"
On February 19 2013 22:57 KwarK wrote: [quote] Random people all over the world bounce signals off of mirrors planted on the surface of the moon all the time. My housemate who is an astrophysics student has needed to do it a few times. Denying the moon landing is willful ignorance, it's intellectually comparable to denying the moon itself. If you're going to go conspiracy, go big. NASA faked the moon.
kwark i would love to see a mod read my post carefully i was (past) thinking they might have faked it and i had my reasons behind it i wanna give you a insight about it and therefore i stated my old believes.
Those are stupid but not as stupid as you might think and therefore i wanted to give you a insight, i thought the threat is there for that.
Damn sometimes you make me mad kwark ;D have a nice day
It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
Lol, please dont assume stuff wich isnt real the mirror wich was left behind was left behind at a later mission not apollo 11 to assume something is real becouse of stupid reasons is just massively idiotic as well kwark!
You would love to swing the hammer or close this wouldnt you?
Sorry, who exactly is denying one moon landing but accepting the others? I didn't realise that was a thing, it'd be pretty retarded.
No idea what a hammer has to do with anything.
You never read what i write do you? I never denied any moon landing. You sound retarded man you really do... Not saying you are but ignoring any explaination i give to you to insist on your first impression would be retarded. I explained how i thought it was fake 10 years ago. Im arguing for my 10 year younger self here who i believe is stupid as well, but you just not doing it right, Therefore you dont deserve any respect!
Or you insist on being a mod here to follow you blindly and accept everything you say as true and right wich i will never make!
You're arguing for your 10 year younger self, and KwarK is winning. Doesn't matter if you changed your mind/think your 10 year old self was stupid if you keep arguing for it and your arguments are being shot down. You can't say "I never denied any moon landing" when you are arguing for your 10 year younger self who DID deny the first moon landing but not the subsequent ones.
Well i dont argue that he was right i just told the arguments i had back then and he didnt made a propper point till now, you sound a little biased.
The points he is insisting on are just plain false: The mirror was plantet in a later mission than the first (wich is questioned the most), The argumends the doubters had were totally different we not even came there yet i just go step by step to the point i once reached.
Its pretty easy to take a shortcut and insist on being right becouse the other side is retarded its just not the way to avoid this oppinions overall. Its only a way to make them even stronger...
You actually all dont get my point and im fine with that im used to not be understand and i fear the truth might crack you all up
We all know the mirror was planted on later missions. The point is that it's dumb to accept later missions (where the mirror was planted) without accepting Apollo 11, and that is what Kwark is arguing for.
Well its the MOST importand race in human history to win it by faking it is not stupid at all. If you are able to land on it but not now but in 3 month its not stupid at all to fake it.
Man im out have fun all living in this buitifull world of trust.
And for the record russians were super close to sending someone to the Moon as well...
But they didn't. So any landing at all wins the race. It doesn't matter if you leave out any specific landing, because the other ones happened. Disproving Apollo 11, but accepting 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 is silly because it changes absolutely nothing.
On February 19 2013 22:59 Chilling5pr33 wrote: [quote] kwark i would love to see a mod read my post carefully i was (past) thinking they might have faked it and i had my reasons behind it i wanna give you a insight about it and therefore i stated my old believes.
Those are stupid but not as stupid as you might think and therefore i wanted to give you a insight, i thought the threat is there for that.
Damn sometimes you make me mad kwark ;D have a nice day
It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
Lol, please dont assume stuff wich isnt real the mirror wich was left behind was left behind at a later mission not apollo 11 to assume something is real becouse of stupid reasons is just massively idiotic as well kwark!
You would love to swing the hammer or close this wouldnt you?
Sorry, who exactly is denying one moon landing but accepting the others? I didn't realise that was a thing, it'd be pretty retarded.
No idea what a hammer has to do with anything.
You never read what i write do you? I never denied any moon landing. You sound retarded man you really do... Not saying you are but ignoring any explaination i give to you to insist on your first impression would be retarded. I explained how i thought it was fake 10 years ago. Im arguing for my 10 year younger self here who i believe is stupid as well, but you just not doing it right, Therefore you dont deserve any respect!
Or you insist on being a mod here to follow you blindly and accept everything you say as true and right wich i will never make!
You're arguing for your 10 year younger self, and KwarK is winning. Doesn't matter if you changed your mind/think your 10 year old self was stupid if you keep arguing for it and your arguments are being shot down. You can't say "I never denied any moon landing" when you are arguing for your 10 year younger self who DID deny the first moon landing but not the subsequent ones.
Well i dont argue that he was right i just told the arguments i had back then and he didnt made a propper point till now, you sound a little biased.
The points he is insisting on are just plain false: The mirror was plantet in a later mission than the first (wich is questioned the most), The argumends the doubters had were totally different we not even came there yet i just go step by step to the point i once reached.
Its pretty easy to take a shortcut and insist on being right becouse the other side is retarded its just not the way to avoid this oppinions overall. Its only a way to make them even stronger...
You actually all dont get my point and im fine with that im used to not be understand and i fear the truth might crack you all up
We all know the mirror was planted on later missions. The point is that it's dumb to accept later missions (where the mirror was planted) without accepting Apollo 11, and that is what Kwark is arguing for.
Well its the MOST importand race in human history to win it by faking it is not stupid at all. If you are able to land on it but not now but in 3 month its not stupid at all to fake it.
Man im out have fun all living in this buitifull world of trust.
And for the record russians were super close to sending someone to the Moon as well...
But they didn't. So any landing at all wins the race. It doesn't matter if you leave out any specific landing, because the other ones happened. Disproving Apollo 11, but accepting 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 is silly because it changes absolutely nothing.
Why would they invest one more penny if they lost?
On February 19 2013 23:09 Chilling5pr33 wrote: Why do we even discuss this here?
Because this is exactly what this topic is about. Picking a mainstream common conspiracy theory and showing how dumb it is might just be the best way to indicate what conspiracy theories are all about.
If the OP want to make the case that being a conspiracy theorist makes you smart, he can't just ignore some popular conspiracy theories, he has to deal with them too. I'm not saying that OP believes the moon landing was faked, but if he wants to defend conspiracy theories as a concept, he has to defend that one as well.
I'm not any sort of conspiracy theorist, but flawed logic like this makes me so mad >.>
Being a conspiracy theorist means believing in at least one conspiracy theory. That doesn't mean the theorist in question believes all of them are true or has to defend all of them. He should be willing and able to defend only the ones that he believes are true!
Defending conspiracy theories as a concept does not require every theory to be true unless the person is making the argument that every conspiracy theory is actually true. That's where the flaw in your thinking lies.
On February 19 2013 21:12 Chilling5pr33 wrote: [quote]
I think it isnt that easy they actually dont think one is more plausible than the other, they think the information leading to that conclusion is false and given knowingly.
Of course they don't believe it's more plausible, just like a lot of insane people believe they are perfectly sane.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that it doesn't matter if the information is given knowlingly. The fact that the conspiracy would have to be so massive is what makes it so improbable. Check the numbers on the people who have worked for NASA in relation to the moon landings. Now assume that every single one of them is lying about the moon landing, and has kept the secret that it's fake until now. That's all you need to realize how extremely improbable it is that the moon landings were faked, yet conspiracy theorists still believe that, for no apparent reason.
Ha yes i believe they could have also tricked them and only the astronauts as well as the studio team know they werent on the moon, ofcourse its impossible all those people would shut down but what if the rocket just orbit earth few weeks and the part of question (the actual landing on the moon) is the part wich is lied about.
The people working on it would actually believe everything went like shown in tv but 50 people know otherwise they are choosen becouse they are able to shut up and be quiet and let the rest of nasa/"The World" believe what they want to believe?
I know the moon landing is real becouse i checked every data avaible and came to the conclusion they would have made some error on the way.
And i dont start searching for them becouse we have those crazy conspiracy heads who would have found something to today as well as russia who has checked the data a 100 times probably ;D
That just makes it even more improbable. Many of the people working at NASA had extremely complicated jobs and are expert scientists in their field. You're basically saying that for the conspiracy theory to make any sense, about 50 people together were able to fool all of those experts and simulate the real situation for them, while at the same time making fake footage from the moon and streaming live.
It's so improbable that all the arguments against it happening suddenly become miniscule. You get to the point where actually going to the moon is easier than faking it.
You don't even need to go down that line of thinking. The astronauts left stuff behind on the moon, they left reflectors that people on earth use to measure the distance to the moon, and we aren't talking about a select few who "say" they have done the experiment. Literally anyone with a good telescope and a powerful enough laser can do the experiment, including myself. A friend of mine works for a university, he once borrowed some equipment and took about 20 of us out in to the sticks and we spent the night bouncing lasers off the reflectors on the moon.
Now I'm sure conspiracy theorists will say that the reflectors weren't put there by actual humans but were sent by rocket to help keep the conspiracy covered up, but why would you do that? Thousands of people were involved in going to the moon, the TV signal was relayed from the UK (Jodrell Bank observatory) back to the US when Armstrong landed, so basically you are saying that those people were either involved or tricked. The only problem with that being that Jodrell Bank confirmed the source of the transmission as being from the moon. Even Russia, engaged in the space race against the US and in the midst of the cold war, acknowledged the achievement. If it was good enough for the Russians, its good enough for everyone else.
It would be so much easier to actually send people to the Moon, that faking it wouldn't be worth doing. There is no way you could keep it all under wraps, not to mention actually getting to the moon is pretty simple in space travel terms, all you need is a vessel and Newtons equations for gravity and motion. Having spent billions of dollars on a launch vehicle, how can anyone think they sent it up to the moon without any people on board? Why would you do that?
I know the OP didn't mention this stuff, but its a pillar of the conspiracy theorist and is the shining light as to why these people are bonkers. I know there are real conspiracies but one so massive as the moon landings or 9/11 being planned by the US government are so bonkers that even bonkers people don't subscribe to them.
Sorry for asking but it was always only about the first landing on the moon didnt they left the mirror in a later mission? Its only about Apollo 11 in my opinion becouse USA lost every other race they really wanted to win that one against the russians therefore a motivation was there to fake it. Even when they could have done it but just needed 3 more month they might just fake it in fear the russians would might have a compareable plan on their hands. (wich as far as i know russian goverment wanted the USA make believe)
You making it quite too easy for yourself to throw that opinion out of the window from the very beginning.
I still believe tehy managed and congratulate the USA to have been the first to put a foot on the moon.
Why do we even discuss this here?
I'm summing up the entire series of landing in to one thing, having actually studied physics and being a massive NASA fan. Yes it was in later missions they put the reflectors but to say they faked the initial landing and then actually went there later is just as absurd, so simply by acknowledging the fact of the reflectors being there, you have to acknowledge the first landing. The US won the space race, its that simple. The Russians got to many things first but the race was to the moon and the US got there first, one of the things about a race is that it doesn't matter who gets to the half way point first, its about to makes it to the finish first.
Basically anyone can create a conspiracy theory, it is as easy as saying "hey did you hear? Obama is a muslim" and look how fast that one caught on. To say we didn't go to the moon is to basically negate the works of thousands of people across the world, not just those who worked for NASA but also the countless others who have worked in multitudes of scientific and engineering field over the last two centuries.
No, you didn't study physics. You don't even know what physics is. You cant even possibly get into real physics material until you get past graduate school. Sitting in a high school class room or watching a youtube video doesn't constitute studying physics. Studying physics implies you have dedicated your entire life into the field and you have become a renowned expert and are making discoveries in disciplines that only a handful of other people in the world can even comprehend. You have no idea what the life of a physicist is like, and you certainly are not a physicist and you don't know anything about physics.
You need to study language.
I sincerely hope you aren't a physicist. Your presumptions are disgusting and that kind of statement boggles my mind, are you implying you're a physicist, to what capacity? That you're better than him? What is your objective? Other than to sound like a bigot.
Your post is infuriating.
Notice how since telling me I didn't study physics, I replied stating that I had studied physics to degree level and how his post was ridiculous, as have a couple others and he has not been back to respond? The hallmark of an inferior intellect. "I'll make a statement that is utterly ridiculous and then not defend it because I can't"
It was a pretty stupid statement which is ignorant of the specialisation that happens when you reach PhD level. Probably shows he never studied physics.
No I do not believe in tin foil hats, alien overlords, fake moon landings, or a looming zombie apocalypse.
Yes, I do believe JFK was killed by the CIA.
No I do not believe JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald, because I have been to Dallas and the Book Depository was behind Kennedy and JFK was clearly shot from the front.
Yes I do believe the Federal Reserve was a conspiracy setup in the 1910-1913 period by the most prominent bankers on Wall Street and in London.
Yes I do believe the Council on Foreign Relations was setup by this same network as the American branch of the British Empire's Round Table groups. You can read Carroll Quigley's "The Anglo-American Establishment" for more on that whole history.
Yes I do believe the CIA was setup by the same network after WWII, because it is open history that the CIA received funding from people closely linked with this network like the Harriman interests even before the CIA was a legal entity, in the grey area of its existence between 1945 and 1947.
Yes I do believe the CIA carries out illegal and covert missions, under the supposed legal authority of the US constitution, for this network around the world and that that has been its primary mission since its inception.
Yes I do believe that this nexus of power constitutes a shadow government in the United States, because that is a term that has been used for decades by people in power themselves.
Yes I do believe this illegal covert faction is ruining the name of America around the world and driving it to militarism and economic ruin.
Yes I do believe we are fucked since alot of this stuff isnt even done by the CIA anymore since the privatization revolution in military affairs in the 2000s, making it so much harder to track and prove any wrongdoing. At least at the CIA was centralized. Now it is a hydra with 100 heads.
Yes I do realize that the CFR also has 100 brothers and sisters created by this same network, like the Heritage Foundation, and CATO Institute on the right, which constantly fight with each other, giving the illusion of separateness.
No I do not think 2 jetliners brought down 3 buildings on 9/11. The Twin Towers were two of the strongest buildings ever created and their collapse time was just seconds off from freefall, for 110 stories each. That means there was virtually no resistance the entire way down. That cannot happen without controlled demolition of the columns. And what about Building 7? There is no question that building was professionally demolished. It's symmetry and speed of collapse combined with its asymmetrical construction over a ConEd substation are more than enough proof to show that it only could have fallen that way with a controlled demolition.
Yes I do agree with the over 1700 Architects and Engineers who also question the collapses of the 3 towers on 9/11, as well as the numerous family members who still have not received any answers to their stack of questions regarding their loved ones murders.
OK I'm hungry I'll leave it at that for now but needless to say I am open to debate any and all points I have defended above.
On February 20 2013 00:26 KwarK wrote: [quote] It's not real because they would have made some error in faking it. It's real because there's shit up there which we put up there which you can check is there. Concluding it wasn't faked for dumb reasons isn't much better, you're missing the point which is that pretty much anyone can bounce stuff off of mirrors placed on the surface of the moon and check for themselves. Coming up with an a priori argument, even if it is also true (they couldn't have gotten away with faking it), misses the fact that needing that argument is massively idiotic.
Lol, please dont assume stuff wich isnt real the mirror wich was left behind was left behind at a later mission not apollo 11 to assume something is real becouse of stupid reasons is just massively idiotic as well kwark!
You would love to swing the hammer or close this wouldnt you?
Sorry, who exactly is denying one moon landing but accepting the others? I didn't realise that was a thing, it'd be pretty retarded.
No idea what a hammer has to do with anything.
You never read what i write do you? I never denied any moon landing. You sound retarded man you really do... Not saying you are but ignoring any explaination i give to you to insist on your first impression would be retarded. I explained how i thought it was fake 10 years ago. Im arguing for my 10 year younger self here who i believe is stupid as well, but you just not doing it right, Therefore you dont deserve any respect!
Or you insist on being a mod here to follow you blindly and accept everything you say as true and right wich i will never make!
You're arguing for your 10 year younger self, and KwarK is winning. Doesn't matter if you changed your mind/think your 10 year old self was stupid if you keep arguing for it and your arguments are being shot down. You can't say "I never denied any moon landing" when you are arguing for your 10 year younger self who DID deny the first moon landing but not the subsequent ones.
Well i dont argue that he was right i just told the arguments i had back then and he didnt made a propper point till now, you sound a little biased.
The points he is insisting on are just plain false: The mirror was plantet in a later mission than the first (wich is questioned the most), The argumends the doubters had were totally different we not even came there yet i just go step by step to the point i once reached.
Its pretty easy to take a shortcut and insist on being right becouse the other side is retarded its just not the way to avoid this oppinions overall. Its only a way to make them even stronger...
You actually all dont get my point and im fine with that im used to not be understand and i fear the truth might crack you all up
We all know the mirror was planted on later missions. The point is that it's dumb to accept later missions (where the mirror was planted) without accepting Apollo 11, and that is what Kwark is arguing for.
Well its the MOST importand race in human history to win it by faking it is not stupid at all. If you are able to land on it but not now but in 3 month its not stupid at all to fake it.
Man im out have fun all living in this buitifull world of trust.
And for the record russians were super close to sending someone to the Moon as well...
Well but your edit showcases the whole problem with the US vs USSR thing: The Russians (and no other nation) were ever to land on the moon. Also all the deep space missions were "made in the US". No other nation has accomplished such a feat but the US repeatedly showed they were capable of such a mission.
The USSR didn't got 2nd place, they never finished.
But back to your conspiracy thing: The russians surely were listening to the radio and detecting the signals (as were others). So they sure would have disclosed the fraud. (But only if they really were enemys and not both controlled by the Bilderbergers. . . .)
What i really believe is that the russians, while self not being able to land there, were trying to at least make it as expensive and recource intensive for the US to reach the moon they did so by faking data that they were pretty close to landing while abandoning the project long ago to save recources and money. The US feeling the pressure might have made something stupid like faking the last actual landing. The calculations the landing itself was a MEGA difficult task and just one little part not functioning properly would have put the whole mission and the lifes of the astronauts at risk. I would prefer the US to fake the landing than let see millions on earth how those brave man die live in TV.
Conspiracy theorists are a testament to how the human brain paints the world according to it's own motivations, it's evolved to bend reality to our own benefit, not to perceive it in it's entirety.
there are hundreds if not thousands of "conspiracy theories" trying to nail OP down to one is not going to work. I don't agree with everything OP said, but it seems like his point is this- considering more potential options is not necessarily a bad thing and shouldn't make a person condemned by society.
Maybe we did land on the moon and maybe we didn't, maybe George Bush was behind 9/11 or maybe he wasn't, but this is all speculation and few people actually know full details about these events besides the individuals who were involved.
I think a better name for this thread would be keep an open mind, or maybe don't believe everything your told simply because of who told it to you.
No I do not think 2 jetliners brought down 3 buildings on 9/11. The Twin Towers were two of the strongest buildings ever created and their collapse time was just seconds off from freefall, for 110 stories each. That means there was virtually no resistance the entire way down. That cannot happen without controlled demolition of the columns. And what about Building 7? There is no question that building was professionally demolished. It's symmetry and speed of collapse combined with its asymmetrical construction over a ConEd substation are more than enough proof to show that it only could have fallen that way with a controlled demolition.
I have posted this a few pages before: It is a lie. They didn't come down with "nearly freefall". And "seconds" are a lot considering the acceleration is 9.81m/s for a building 417 m high. (In real free fall it would just take 6.5 seconds to cross this distance.)
On February 19 2013 23:09 Chilling5pr33 wrote: Why do we even discuss this here?
Because this is exactly what this topic is about. Picking a mainstream common conspiracy theory and showing how dumb it is might just be the best way to indicate what conspiracy theories are all about.
If the OP want to make the case that being a conspiracy theorist makes you smart, he can't just ignore some popular conspiracy theories, he has to deal with them too. I'm not saying that OP believes the moon landing was faked, but if he wants to defend conspiracy theories as a concept, he has to defend that one as well.
I'm not any sort of conspiracy theorist, but flawed logic like this makes me so mad >.>
Being a conspiracy theorist means believing in at least one conspiracy theory. That doesn't mean the theorist in question believes all of them are true or has to defend all of them. He should be willing and able to defend only the ones that he believes are true!
Defending conspiracy theories as a concept does not require every theory to be true unless the person is making the argument that every conspiracy theory is actually true. That's where the flaw in your thinking lies.
Well if you read the OP, he claims that all theorys/explanations have the same probability and he doesn't want to pick one - he is openminded.
On February 20 2013 02:25 Perdac Curall wrote:Yes I do agree with the over 1700 Architects and Engineers who also question the collapses of the 3 towers on 9/11, as well as the numerous family members who still have not received any answers to their stack of questions regarding their loved ones murders.
Just remember that there are like, hundreds of thousands of engineers, scientists, and architects who disagree with those 1700 people
On February 20 2013 02:25 Perdac Curall wrote:Yes I do agree with the over 1700 Architects and Engineers who also question the collapses of the 3 towers on 9/11, as well as the numerous family members who still have not received any answers to their stack of questions regarding their loved ones murders.
Just remember that there are like, hundreds of thousands of engineers, scientists, and architects who disagree with those 1700 people
It always amazes me how people can post something as ridiculous as that. HEY LOOK EVERYBODY there's like <1% of people that agree with me!
On February 20 2013 02:31 MetalxStorm wrote: there are hundreds if not thousands of "conspiracy theories" trying to nail OP down to one is not going to work. I don't agree with everything OP said, but it seems like his point is this- considering more potential options is not necessarily a bad thing and shouldn't make a person condemned by society.
Maybe we did land on the moon and maybe we didn't, maybe George Bush was behind 9/11 or maybe he wasn't, but this is all speculation and few people actually know full details about these events besides the individuals who were involved.
I think a better name for this thread would be keep an open mind, or maybe don't believe everything your told simply because of who told it to you.
You don't have to know all the details to disprove something. All you need to do is imagine what it would imply if the theory was true.
If it was true that we didn't land on the Moon, the Soviets would've known. Radio communication between Houston and Apollo 11 wasn't encrypted or anything, and even amateur radio enthusiasts listened in. If it had been faked, the Soviets would've known and would've loved to blow our cover. Anything to shame the bourgeious capitalists.
If GW, or anyone in the government had been behind 9/11, it would require thousands of people keeping it secret. Considering Bill Clinton couldn't even hide a blowjob, I'm doubting the government could hide murdering 3,000 of its own people. Just because GW used 9/11 to go to war doesn't mean he caused 9/11, it just means he was good at playing the hand he was dealt.
Well, we've hit 9/11 truthers. I guess that makes a thread. But before we go, a closing thought. The twin towers in New York stood proudly for nearly eleven thousand days and yet we're expected to believe that on the morning of the 12th of September 2001 they just weren't there anymore after that many consecutive days of being there? What are the odds that that'd happen? Think about it like this. You don't need to understand exactly how gravity works to know that when you drop something it'll fall towards the strongest gravitational body around it, the body of experience you build up over time is how you know things fall when dropped. If you dropped something eleven thousand times and it fell each time but then I told you that from now on they wouldn't fall anymore then you'd think that was total bullshit, why is the idea that suddenly the twin towers collapsed so readily accepted. I wonder what proportion of conspiracy theorists have actually gone to New York and checked whether they're not still there and totally fine.
EPT
but I would not call myself a conspiracy theorist 
I also know it is a very tricky path to go, with many ways to divert. I'll admit that I seldom spend much time actually considering the merits of the scientific conspiration theories though. 
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_r7sURkxKVvE/S9SEL-_or9I/AAAAAAAAGFc/CRxN5oJsqj8/s1600/voodoo+histories-david+aaronovich.jpg)
