The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Tontogary on May 08, 2018, 06:22:32 AM
-
Just found this on BBC, rather interesting, and certainly tries to explain why some are rather entrenched in their beliefs of TFE and the bconspiracy.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180124-the-enduring-appeal-of-conspiracy-theories
-
I read a similar article not too long ago that claimed it's because they want to feel special.
https://qz.com/1258198/conspiracy-theorists-believe-wild-ideas-because-they-want-to-feel-special/
They even did a fake conspiracy about fire detectors in Germany as an experiment.
-
Just found this on BBC, rather interesting, and certainly tries to explain why some are rather entrenched in their beliefs of TFE and the bconspiracy.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180124-the-enduring-appeal-of-conspiracy-theories
It is indeed a complex one, the whole topic of conspiracies. Some say it makes the believer feel superior in that they know something that the masses dont, and are smart enough to see through they lies that ‘they’ generate. They, flat earth believers, often see themselves as open minded free thinkers, which in reality is quite far from the truth. Their open mindedness that rejects space travel and satellites, requires a conspiracy that spans not only nations but an incerdibly diverse set of people possibly numbering tens it not hundreds of millions who works in all the related industries; space, telecommunications, design and development, aerospace along with the world of academia. It it were true the numbers required to falsify all the infomation generated would be collosal. Yet free thinking flat earth believers are somehow able to gloss over this, their belief transcending all form of logic. Yet has any evidence ever been produced to support their conspiracy? I for one have never seen any.
-
It's an interesting psychology. To quote REM
If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon
If you believe there's nothing up his sleeve, then nothing is cool
Some people seem to like to think that "they" are up to something and that they're the ones who have discovered "the truth".
Dunno. Maybe it makes them feel more important, maybe they want to think the world is a bit more exciting than it really is.
It's all a bit odd.
-
Conspiracy theories are silly. Your government would never lie to you, and conspiracy theories have never been proven right.
Anyway I'll just leave these here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_SUNSHINE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakil_Afridi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Organized_crime (See Paragraph 5)
-
Conspiracy theories are silly. Your government would never lie to you, and conspiracy theories have never been proven right.
Anyway I'll just leave these here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_SUNSHINE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakil_Afridi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Organized_crime (See Paragraph 5)
And what does TFES home page say about relying on Wikipedia?
It urges one to not rely upon Wikipedia which can be edited by pretty much anyone, but to go out and observe for yourself, or use other resources.
The BBC article i referenced at the start of this article references a number of different studies and sources for its article. Not just Wikipedia.
There are certainly some things governments keep quiet about, for commercial or military, as well as privacy reasons, (which is sometimes a good thing, or ones enemies would be very happy,) but as is also referenced in the OP article, there is a reference to a study which says that the likelihood of a secret being kept is inversely proportional to the number of people who know it.
Now i have heard the Libor scandal bandied about as an example of hiding things that affect us, yes it was a scandal, and yes it was covered up for a while but it was done by a relatively small number of people who colluded for a specific purpose, on an area not well known about by the general public(at that time) it was still discovered and the cover up blown.
Now take that and exponentially expand it to every person involved in a cover up for the space race, earth shape, satellites, physics results and experiments, universities and lecturers, shipping companies, airline staff, etc etc. There is NO WAY that the conspiracies can be kept covered up.
-
Conspiracy theories are silly. Your government would never lie to you, and conspiracy theories have never been proven right.
So I take it then that the Moon landings are completely true and that the images of Earth from them are indeed irrefutable evidence that the world is round?
Also, my government lies to me on a daily basis. *ahemcoughtrumpahemcough*
-
And what does TFES home page say about relying on Wikipedia?
Nothing at all. The word "Wikipedia" is absent from the home page. I wrote most of the content there, so if you're confused about anything, I'm happy to help.
It urges one to not rely upon Wikipedia which can be edited by pretty much anyone, but to go out and observe for yourself, or use other resources.
No, it doesn't say any of that. You appear to confuse the message of "don't automatically trust something just because it's on the Internet" with "please automatically distrust everything on the Internet". The two are not synonymous.
-
And what does TFES home page say about relying on Wikipedia?
Nothing at all. The word "Wikipedia" is absent from the home page. I wrote most of the content there, so if you're confused about anything, I'm happy to help.
It urges one to not rely upon Wikipedia which can be edited by pretty much anyone, but to go out and observe for yourself, or use other resources.
No, it doesn't say any of that. You appear to confuse the message of "don't automatically trust something just because it's on the Internet" with "please automatically distrust everything on the Internet". The two are not synonymous.
Having read your homepage, i have a few questions that perhaps you may answer.
You are fairly scathing of Space X a company who has made numerous launches in its short history and has many more planned. Its launches and landings, while indeed have been streamed live on the internet, something you urge caution on, they have also been witnessed live by many thousands of people. When it came to your steam powered flat earth rockateer you offered no such caution on his story. Why the difference is approach?
Another perplexing question is why do flat earth people such as yourself still refer to the proven charlatan and rouge Rowbottom? The way you still cling like grim death to this character is testimony to the dearth of ‘evidence’ you actually have. If he managed in 1836 to carry out a pretty rudimentary experiment with a telescope, surely it would not be beyond your means to do something a bit more high tech given how inexpensive laser levelling equipment is these days.
-
And what does TFES home page say about relying on Wikipedia?
Nothing at all. The word "Wikipedia" is absent from the home page. I wrote most of the content there, so if you're confused about anything, I'm happy to help.
It urges one to not rely upon Wikipedia which can be edited by pretty much anyone, but to go out and observe for yourself, or use other resources.
No, it doesn't say any of that. You appear to confuse the message of "don't automatically trust something just because it's on the Internet" with "please automatically distrust everything on the Internet". The two are not synonymous.
You are correct, Wikipedia is not mentioned on the home page, i was confusing it with something else.
I am glad that Wikipedia is an accepted reference source, as i have tried hard to look for references outside of it.
I personally trust very little i read there unless i can Cross check with other sources.
Glad to have been corrected on this point on this occasion
-
No, it doesn't say any of that. You appear to confuse the message of "don't automatically trust something just because it's on the Internet" with "please automatically distrust everything on the Internet". The two are not synonymous.
Likewise, with Benny’s list.
I don’t think any sane person would believe all that is put before them, especially by people whose wish is to rule them, but to then extrapolate by insinuation that ergo, we are right in our delusion, frankly against both the run of probability (See Tonto’s post) and evidence to the contrary, is perverse. Indeed, it is this sort of correlation that conspiracies thrive on.
-
The people who created NASA were also caught conducting a secret war. Why should we trust a word from them?
-
The people who created NASA were also caught conducting a secret war. Why should we trust a word from them?
Is that real? Like actually because if so, wow.
-
The people who created NASA were also caught conducting a secret war. Why should we trust a word from them?
Is that real? Like actually because if so, wow.
Yes. Look into the Pentagon Papers which exposed the secret war of the Vietnam era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers) in which the public and Congress were systematically lied to about the scale of the war and reckless disregard for civilian casualties for over 20 years between 1945 to 1967. The Secret War was administrated by the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson administration, the same people who were in charge around the time when NASA started making all of its fantastic claims.
From the wiki link --
President Johnson had decided to expand the war while promising "we seek no wider war" during his 1964 presidential campaign,[8] including plans to bomb North Vietnam well before the 1964 Election. President Johnson had been outspoken against doing so during the election and claimed that his opponent Barry Goldwater was the one that wanted to bomb North Vietnam.
Those same legislators also put Nazi war criminals in the NASA administration.
-
The people who created NASA were also caught conducting a secret war. Why should we trust a word from them?
Is that real? Like actually because if so, wow.
Yes. Look into the Pentagon Papers which exposed the secret war of the Vietnam era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers) in which the public and Congress were systematically lied to about the scale of the war and reckless disregard for civilian casualties for over 20 years between 1945 to 1967. The Secret War was administrated by the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson administration, the same people who were in charge around the time when NASA started making all of its fantastic claims.
From the wiki link --
President Johnson had decided to expand the war while promising "we seek no wider war" during his 1964 presidential campaign,[8] including plans to bomb North Vietnam well before the 1964 Election. President Johnson had been outspoken against doing so during the election and claimed that his opponent Barry Goldwater was the one that wanted to bomb North Vietnam.
Those same legislators also put Nazi war criminals in the NASA administration.
Let me read those, and I thought we did the Nazi thing because the Germans had superior rocket science...
Edit: (Wikipedia is banned by the internet I use for some ungodly reason, so I'll have to read them later. Fullest apologizes.)
-
Let me read those, and I thought we did the Nazi thing because the Germans had superior rocket science...
It was more than that. They put the Nazis in control of NASA. Wernher Von Braun, a notorious war criminal (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3051.msg70720#msg70720) and SS Officer, was made into a NASA director.
-
Let me read those, and I thought we did the Nazi thing because the Germans had superior rocket science...
It was more than that. They put the Nazis in control of NASA. Wernher Von Braun, a notorious war criminal (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3051.msg70720#msg70720) and SS Officer, was made into a NASA director.
Huh, that was an interesting choice. Although, from what I'm reading right now, he was following his childhood dream of rockets, and the German's were just a way he could get to that. And then again, we do have a horrible history of putting the wrong people in high positions.
-
Let me read those, and I thought we did the Nazi thing because the Germans had superior rocket science...
It was more than that. They put the Nazis in control of NASA. Wernher Von Braun, a notorious war criminal (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3051.msg70720#msg70720) and SS Officer, was made into a NASA director.
The Soviets were the enemy at the time, not former Nazis.
Given that von Braun didn't start a second Holocaust in the US, I don't think any mistakes were made.
-
Von Braun freely used slavery, torture, and murder to achieve his ends. He was a Colonel in the SS! And yet some argue that he was an innocent rocket scientist?
Are we supposed to believe in NASA, which was created by liars, who harbored the most evil criminals on earth within their ranks, appointed them to high positions in their governance, and then take their word of scientific achievements without question?
-
Von Braun used slavery, torture, and murder to achieve his ends. He was a Colonel in the SS!
Are we supposed to believe that NASA harbored the most evil criminals on earth within their ranks, appointed them to high positions in their governance, and then take their word of scientific achievements without question?
Before the civil war, the South had appointed governors who encouraged slavery, and treated African American's like they weren't human. Yet, after the war and during Reconstruction, we allowed these governors to return to power, and take away African American rights. Is this not similarly related?
-
Von Braun used slavery, torture, and murder to achieve his ends. He was a Colonel in the SS!
Are we supposed to believe that NASA harbored the most evil criminals on earth within their ranks, appointed them to high positions in their governance, and then take their word of scientific achievements without question?
Before the civil war, the South had appointed governors who encouraged slavery, and treated African American's like they weren't human. Yet, after the war and during Reconstruction, we allowed these governors to return to power, and take away African American rights. Is this not similarly related?
Are you really making an argument that it is fine for Hitler's officers to "return to power" after the war?
They weren't even "in power" in this country. That is like arguing that it would be okay for Dr. Josef Mengele to be made the Surgeon General of the United States.
-
Von Braun used slavery, torture, and murder to achieve his ends. He was a Colonel in the SS!
Are we supposed to believe that NASA harbored the most evil criminals on earth within their ranks, appointed them to high positions in their governance, and then take their word of scientific achievements without question?
Before the civil war, the South had appointed governors who encouraged slavery, and treated African American's like they weren't human. Yet, after the war and during Reconstruction, we allowed these governors to return to power, and take away African American rights. Is this not similarly related?
Are you really making an argument that it is fine for Hitler's officers to "return to power" after the war?
They weren't even "in power" in this country. That is like arguing that Dr. Josef Mengele should have be made the Suregon General of the United States.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm just relating it to something in history. I'm really making an argument that although he might have served in a certain military, doesn't mean he wanted to fight for that. Do you really think all Nazi's wanted to fight for Hitler?
-
Von Braun freely used slavery, torture, and murder to achieve his ends. He was a Colonel in the SS! And yet some argue that he was an innocent rocket scientist?
Are we supposed to believe that NASA, which was created by liars, harbored the most evil criminals on earth within their ranks, appointed them to high positions in their governance, and then take their word of scientific achievements without question?
They only gave him authority as an aerospace engineer. Have you heard of "power corrupts"?
-
The people who created NASA were also caught conducting a secret war. Why should we trust a word from them?
Is that real? Like actually because if so, wow.
Yes. Look into the Pentagon Papers which exposed the secret war of the Vietnam era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers) in which the public and Congress were systematically lied to about the scale of the war and reckless disregard for civilian casualties for over 20 years between 1945 to 1967. The Secret War was administrated by the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson administration, the same people who were in charge around the time when NASA started making all of its fantastic claims.
From the wiki link --
President Johnson had decided to expand the war while promising "we seek no wider war" during his 1964 presidential campaign,[8] including plans to bomb North Vietnam well before the 1964 Election. President Johnson had been outspoken against doing so during the election and claimed that his opponent Barry Goldwater was the one that wanted to bomb North Vietnam.
Those same legislators also put Nazi war criminals in the NASA administration.
I don't see the connection.
How does lying about the Vietnam war tie into NASA being a fraud? Is everything that happened during those administrators a lie as well because they covered up this secret war?
-
That's not what I'm saying. I'm just relating it to something in history. I'm really making an argument that although he might have served in a certain military, doesn't mean he wanted to fight for that. Do you really think all Nazi's wanted to fight for Hitler?
There is quite a big difference between a German citizen, a Nazi party member, and an officer of the SS.
They only gave him authority as an aerospace engineer. Have you heard of "power corrupts"?
Von Braun was made a NASA director. Look him up.
I don't see the connection.
How does lying about the Vietnam war tie into NASA being a fraud? Is everything that happened during those administrators a lie as well because they covered up this secret war?
These were not good people. They are not trustworthy. If they are willing to conduct a secret war then it is certainly no leap that they are willing to create some fake space achievements. The credibility is shot.
-
They only gave him authority as an aerospace engineer. Have you heard of "power corrupts"?
Von Braun was made a NASA director. Look him up.
Still, he would not have been able to go around gassing Jews on a whim.
Imagine you're interviewing someone. He happens to be a former murderer, but he swears he's learned his lesson and he has an impressive résumé. There are quite a lot of people who would argue that you should hire them.
-
That's not what I'm saying. I'm just relating it to something in history. I'm really making an argument that although he might have served in a certain military, doesn't mean he wanted to fight for that. Do you really think all Nazi's wanted to fight for Hitler?
There is quite a big difference between a German citizen, a Nazi party member, and an member of the SS Force.
They only gave him authority as an aerospace engineer. Have you heard of "power corrupts"?
Von Braun was made a NASA director. Look him up.
I don't see the connection.
How does lying about the Vietnam war tie into NASA being a fraud? Is everything that happened during those administrators a lie as well because they covered up this secret war?
These were not good people. They are not trustworthy. If they are willing to conduct a secret war then is is certainly no leap that they are willing to create some fake space achievements. The credibility is shot.
And NASA now?
-
I don't see the connection.
How does lying about the Vietnam war tie into NASA being a fraud? Is everything that happened during those administrators a lie as well because they covered up this secret war?
These were not good people. They are not trustworthy. If they are willing to conduct a secret war then is is certainly no leap that they are willing to create some fake space achievements. The credibility is shot.
Which ones exactly were the corrupt individuals? The whole administration?
And if they're credibility was lost after the secret war cover up then is it a stretch to say that 3 administrations straight lied about everything they did?
I see where you're going with "if they lied about x then what else are they willing to cover up?" but I can't see that as an excuse to dismiss everything by default, including incidents that have nothing to do with each other (NASA and the Vietnam war).
-
I don't see the connection.
How does lying about the Vietnam war tie into NASA being a fraud? Is everything that happened during those administrators a lie as well because they covered up this secret war?
These were not good people. They are not trustworthy. If they are willing to conduct a secret war then is is certainly no leap that they are willing to create some fake space achievements. The credibility is shot.
Which ones exactly were the corrupt individuals? The whole administration?
And if they're credibility was lost after the secret war cover up then is it a stretch to say that 3 administrations straight lied about everything they did?
I see where you're going with "if they lied about x then what else are they willing to cover up?" but I can't see that as an excuse to dismiss everything by default, including incidents that have nothing to do with each other (NASA and the Vietnam war).
What do you mean the Vietnam War had nothing to do with NASA? NASA was created as a direct consequence of the Cold War. After WWII there was a race to space between the US and USSR. The goal was to get weapons like ICBMs into earth orbit so that the range for total annihilation was unlimited. The US and USSR were in a race for the ability to nuke each other at the press of a button.
The Vietnam War and the Cold War were all part of the same conflict. Eisenhower believed that if one country fell into communism, more noncommunist countries would fall as well. When the Soviet Union bribed Vietnam to turn communist the US feared for the worse and decided to enter the war.
The Vietnam War was a Proxy War between the USA and USSR. The Soviets were allies with the Vietnamese, and so it was their duty to protect them. The Soviets were supplying Vietnam with ammunition, weapons, food, and support.
While the Vietnam War was the physical battle, the Cold War was the technological battle between the US and USSR behind the scenes, in which each country would try to "one up" each other with technological claims of superiority.
It should be noted that Russia went around parading fake ICBMs (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/moscow-paraded-dummy-missiles-1185682.html) for decades:
Moscow paraded dummy missiles
MANY OF the huge strategic missiles displayed in Red Square parades during the Soviet era were only dummies, but they scared the West into an expensive response, a Russian magazine reported yesterday.
One such fake, GR-1, an acronym for Global Missile, showed during a parade in 1965, prompted the United States to build an anti- missile defence system worth billions of dollars, said the weekly Vlast (Power). In fact, the Soviets had abandoned the GR-1 project long before the parade.
Another two mobile ballistic missiles shown in the same parade were also fakes, their test launches having been a failure, the magazine said. "Foreign military attaches were scared to death, triggering panic in Nato headquarters," it said. "A huge international uproar followed, and only those who prepared this demonstration knew they were dummies." One of the authors of the Vlast report worked as a missile engineer and said he had worked on a support system for one of the fake missiles to prevent it from bouncing on the stone-paved Red Square in Moscow. The magazine said the Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev first bluffed the West with the legend of powerful Russian missiles, saying the Soviet Union was making them "like sausage". "Such comparison sounded ambiguous for the Soviet people, because the sausage was in deficit, but it duly impressed foreigners," it said. At the time of Krushchev's comment, the Soviets had only four intercontinental ballistic missiles on duty, while the United States had 60. "The myth about the Soviet missile superiority was convenient for both the Soviet leadership and the American military industrial complex, which was getting huge contracts," the magazine said.
Another article on the subject:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/may1499.html#6 (http://www.cdi.org/russia/may1499.html#6)
There's also a book about their fake ICBM programs:
(https://i.imgur.com/ztJStFP.jpg)
-
I don't see the connection.
How does lying about the Vietnam war tie into NASA being a fraud? Is everything that happened during those administrators a lie as well because they covered up this secret war?
These were not good people. They are not trustworthy. If they are willing to conduct a secret war then is is certainly no leap that they are willing to create some fake space achievements. The credibility is shot.
Which ones exactly were the corrupt individuals? The whole administration?
And if they're credibility was lost after the secret war cover up then is it a stretch to say that 3 administrations straight lied about everything they did?
I see where you're going with "if they lied about x then what else are they willing to cover up?" but I can't see that as an excuse to dismiss everything by default, including incidents that have nothing to do with each other (NASA and the Vietnam war).
What do you mean the Vietnam War had nothing to do with NASA? NASA was created as a direct consequence of the Cold War. After WWII there was a race to space between the US and USSR. The goal was to get weapons like ICBMs into earth orbit so that the range for total annihilation was unlimited. The US and USSR were in a race for the ability to nuke each other at the press of a button.
The Vietnam War and the Cold War were all part of the same conflict. Eisenhower believed that if one country fell into communism, more noncommunist countries would fall as well. When the Soviet Union bribed Vietnam to turn communist the US feared for the worse and decided to enter the war.
The Vietnam War was a Proxy War between the USA and USSR. The Soviets were allies with the Vietnamese, and so it was their duty to protect them. The Soviets were supplying Vietnam with ammunition, weapons, food, and support.
While the Vietnam War was the physical battle, the Cold War was the technological battle between the US and USSR behind the scenes, in which each country would try to "one up" each other with technological claims of superiority.
It should be noted that Russia went around parading fake ICBMs (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/moscow-paraded-dummy-missiles-1185682.html) for decades:
Moscow paraded dummy missiles
MANY OF the huge strategic missiles displayed in Red Square parades during the Soviet era were only dummies, but they scared the West into an expensive response, a Russian magazine reported yesterday.
One such fake, GR-1, an acronym for Global Missile, showed during a parade in 1965, prompted the United States to build an anti- missile defence system worth billions of dollars, said the weekly Vlast (Power). In fact, the Soviets had abandoned the GR-1 project long before the parade.
Another two mobile ballistic missiles shown in the same parade were also fakes, their test launches having been a failure, the magazine said. "Foreign military attaches were scared to death, triggering panic in Nato headquarters," it said. "A huge international uproar followed, and only those who prepared this demonstration knew they were dummies." One of the authors of the Vlast report worked as a missile engineer and said he had worked on a support system for one of the fake missiles to prevent it from bouncing on the stone-paved Red Square in Moscow. The magazine said the Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev first bluffed the West with the legend of powerful Russian missiles, saying the Soviet Union was making them "like sausage". "Such comparison sounded ambiguous for the Soviet people, because the sausage was in deficit, but it duly impressed foreigners," it said. At the time of Krushchev's comment, the Soviets had only four intercontinental ballistic missiles on duty, while the United States had 60. "The myth about the Soviet missile superiority was convenient for both the Soviet leadership and the American military industrial complex, which was getting huge contracts," the magazine said.
Another article on the subject:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/may1499.html#6 (http://www.cdi.org/russia/may1499.html#6)
There's also a book about their fake ICBM programs:
(https://i.imgur.com/ztJStFP.jpg)
I have to say Tom, all this does is help cement the idea that things are actually in space. The fallout from the collapse of the USSR, the rivalry between the two. Neither side during that period was 'debunked' on going into space or orbit. Both sides had all the reason in the world to show they hadn't managed their claims. Hell, the US even after the collapse/fall had more than enough reason (if it was found to be so) to show how Russia and Russians never got into space. How could it have hurt their credibility at all in that time period? To me at least everything you've presented here points away from a now global conspiracy of space flight.
-
And if they're credibility was lost after the secret war cover up then is it a stretch to say that 3 administrations straight lied about everything they did?
Not just 3 administrations, but 9 administrations: Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump have all maintained that the Apollo program was not a hoax.
-
I have to say Tom, all this does is help cement the idea that things are actually in space. The fallout from the collapse of the USSR, the rivalry between the two. Neither side during that period was 'debunked' on going into space or orbit. Both sides had all the reason in the world to show they hadn't managed their claims. Hell, the US even after the collapse/fall had more than enough reason (if it was found to be so) to show how Russia and Russians never got into space. How could it have hurt their credibility at all in that time period? To me at least everything you've presented here points away from a now global conspiracy of space flight.
The countries did cast doubt and yell "fake!" after each achievement at the time. It took a long time for NASA to accept Russia's claim of the first man in space. Russian officials are still yelling "fake!" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3130017/Russian-official-demands-investigation-really-happened-moon-landing-original-footage-disappeared.html)
You have no idea what you are talking about. What are you are claiming what would happen has happened. The world just ignored it.
-
These were not good people. They are not trustworthy. If they are willing to conduct a secret war then it is certainly no leap that they are willing to create some fake space achievements.
And yet, you can see the ISS from earth.
7 tourists have paid to visit it.
GPS works.
Satellite TV works.
etc. etc.
And there are a bunch of countries who have put things in space.
By all accounts Newton was a bit of an arse, often claiming credit for things which he at best co-invented. Doesn't mean his ideas are without merit.
I know you have to clutch at any straws you can but it's a bit of a leap from "NASA was formed by some bad dudes" to "All space travel has been faked for the last 60+ years"
-
These were not good people. They are not trustworthy. If they are willing to conduct a secret war then it is certainly no leap that they are willing to create some fake space achievements.
And yet, you can see the ISS from earth.
7 tourists have paid to visit it.
GPS works.
Satellite TV works.
etc. etc.
And there are a bunch of countries who have put things in space.
By all accounts Newton was a bit of an arse, often claiming credit for things which he at best co-invented. Doesn't mean his ideas are without merit.
I know you have to clutch at any straws you can but it's a bit of a leap from "NASA was formed by some bad dudes" to "All space travel has been faked for the last 60+ years"
I believe you mean:
"I can see a little dot for a brief time in the sky"
"7 tourists I have never met, and many of which who are investors or officers of space aerospace contractors, went into space"
"GPS and Satellite TV technologies, of which I do not have direct knowledge of, works"
Hardly convincing or conclusive.
-
I have to say Tom, all this does is help cement the idea that things are actually in space. The fallout from the collapse of the USSR, the rivalry between the two. Neither side during that period was 'debunked' on going into space or orbit. Both sides had all the reason in the world to show they hadn't managed their claims. Hell, the US even after the collapse/fall had more than enough reason (if it was found to be so) to show how Russia and Russians never got into space. How could it have hurt their credibility at all in that time period? To me at least everything you've presented here points away from a now global conspiracy of space flight.
The countries did cast doubt and yell "fake!" after each achievement at the time. It took a long time for NASA to accept Russia's claim of the first man in space. Russian officials are still yelling "fake!" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3130017/Russian-official-demands-investigation-really-happened-moon-landing-original-footage-disappeared.html)
You have no idea what you are talking about. What are you are claiming that would happen has happened. The world just ignored it.
I get the feeling that NASA denied the Soviets' achievement because it conflicted with the worldview of capitalism always being better, not on any reasonable grounds.
If the USSR had any conclusive proof that the Moon landings were faked, then they would have given said evidence a spot on the front page. They didn't.
-
I have to say Tom, all this does is help cement the idea that things are actually in space. The fallout from the collapse of the USSR, the rivalry between the two. Neither side during that period was 'debunked' on going into space or orbit. Both sides had all the reason in the world to show they hadn't managed their claims. Hell, the US even after the collapse/fall had more than enough reason (if it was found to be so) to show how Russia and Russians never got into space. How could it have hurt their credibility at all in that time period? To me at least everything you've presented here points away from a now global conspiracy of space flight.
The countries did cast doubt and yell "fake!" after each achievement at the time. It took a long time for NASA to accept Russia's claim of the first man in space. Russian officials are still yelling "fake!" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3130017/Russian-official-demands-investigation-really-happened-moon-landing-original-footage-disappeared.html)
You have no idea what you are talking about. What are you are claiming that would happen has happened. The world just ignored it.
I get the feeling that NASA denied the Soviets' achievement because it conflicted with the worldview of capitalism always being better, not on any reasonable grounds.
If the USSR had any conclusive proof that the Moon landings were faked, then they would have given said evidence a spot on the front page. They didn't.
How would they have "conclusive evidence"? Did you think that the USSR had solar-system-ranging radar systems or spy cameras located around the moon or something?
You are just making up the USSR's actual technological capability in your head. It is pretty ridiculous to assert that "they would know" right after reading an article admitting that many of their ICBM technologies were fake.
-
How would they have "conclusive evidence"? Did you think that the USSR had solar-system-ranging radar systems or spy cameras located around the moon or something?
You are just making up the USSR's actual technological capability in your head. It is pretty ridiculous to assert that "they would know" right after reading an article admitting that many of their ICBM technologies were fake.
The UK had the capability to track Apollo craft all the way to the lunar surface, but lacked any ability to launch anything, so considering the Russians did have the launch capability ....
-
"I can see a little dot for a brief time in the sky"
With binoculars, yes. With a good telescope...
(http://uploads.neatorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Discovery-ISS-500x402.jpg)
http://www.neatorama.com/2011/02/28/space-shuttle-docking-with-space-station-as-seen-from-earth/
7 tourists I have never met, and many of which who are investors or officers of space aerospace contractors, went into space
You're right. I've never met any of them but I have no idea what their reason to lie would be.
The last dude who did it is the co-founder of Cirque du Soleil, what's his stake in this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism#List_of_flown_space_tourists
None of them were sent to the ISS by NASA by the way...
Hardly convincing or conclusive.
Not if you want to keep clutching at those straws, I guess...
-
How would they have "conclusive evidence"? Did you think that the USSR had solar-system-ranging radar systems or spy cameras located around the moon or something?
You are just making up the USSR's actual technological capability in your head. It is pretty ridiculous to assert that "they would know" right after reading an article admitting that many of their ICBM technologies were fake.
The UK had the capability to track Apollo craft all the way to the lunar surface, but lacked any ability to launch anything, so considering the Russians did have the launch capability ....
The Cold War was a war of lies. We have seen that that the USSR's missiles were phony. Why should we assume that the rest of the USSR's claims were perfectly true? After lying so much, what credibility do they have?
-
Russian officials are still yelling "fake!" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3130017/Russian-official-demands-investigation-really-happened-moon-landing-original-footage-disappeared.html)
Maybe you have to be British to understand how shaky that ground is, quoting a Daily Mail article - the are notorious over here for inaccuracy and twisting of facts.
The headline: Russia suggests America has NEVER landed on the moon
Then in the article
According to the translation in the Moscow Times, Mr Markin claimed Russia were ‘not contending that they did not fly (to the moon) and simply made a film about it.'
(my emphasis)
-
Russian officials are still yelling "fake!" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3130017/Russian-official-demands-investigation-really-happened-moon-landing-original-footage-disappeared.html)
Maybe you have to be British to understand how shaky that ground is, quoting a Daily Mail article - the are notorious over here for inaccuracy and twisting of facts.
The headline: Russia suggests America has NEVER landed on the moon
Then in the article
According to the translation in the Moscow Times, Mr Markin claimed Russia were ‘not contending that they did not fly (to the moon) and simply made a film about it.'
(my emphasis)
And the very next sentence:
But his comments are certain to be seen as a deliberate attempt to suggest there is reason to doubt the lunar landing was real – especially as he also attacked the US investigation into FIFA corruption.
Considering that the Russian official is saying that NASA should be investigated for the missing moon rocks and the 200,000 tapes containing Apollo scientific data from the moon that were mass-erased to "save money," this is absolutely an affront to the legitimacy of the Apollo missions.
Many people have pointed out that these "whoops we lost it all" excuses are a telltale sign of fraud. The Russian official is rightly suggesting that NASA should be investigated over it.
These comments were a direct result of the US investigating Russian FIFA corruption. He is obviously suggesting that the US is hiding something corrupt of their own.
-
Many people have pointed out that these "whoops we lost it all" excuses are a telltale sign of fraud. The Russian official is rightly suggesting that NASA is investigated over it.
I'm all for an investigation, but don't immediately assume it's because of fraud. It's just as likely to result from mismanagement and incompetence.
-
Many people have pointed out that these "whoops we lost it all" excuses are a telltale sign of fraud. The Russian official is rightly suggesting that NASA is investigated over it.
I'm all for an investigation, but don't immediately assume it's because of fraud. It's just as likely to result from mismanagement and incompetence.
I assume, then, that you also buy the story that after receiving a demand from Congress to turn over her data, that Hillary Clinton deleted her emails with BleachBit and had her staff smash cell phones with hammers, because of "mismanagement and incompetence."
Erasing one-of-a-kind scientific data on 200,000 tapes in bulk and losing moon rocks worth millions of dollars is no small thing. These are deliberate actions.
-
So toms point is;
Politicians lie.
Sorry to break it to you Tom, but i think it is a generally accepted principle that politicians lie, pretty much about everything.
Then because some politicians created Nasa, then by a leap of imagination, Nasa lies too.
Soviet politicians lie. Now there is no real surprise. Tom has provided what he calls evidence (referencing a book) that shows this.
Soviet politicians were also responsible for creating their space programme, and the Russian space agency also must have been in on the conspiracy for space travel, as launches to the (fake?) ISS rate by Russia.
Yet he is happy to quote “Soviet officials” for calling for inverstigations into Nasa, as some sort of reason to believe that Nasa is lying? A bit hypocritical i must say.
The german rocket programme also created the V2, a usable ballistic missile. Was that a fake? If so i would like to know how the families of the hundreds of people killed by V2 rockets feel about them being killed by random explosions across England which must therefore have been caused by the British government, who were complicit with their enemies.
Politicians also created the National Health Service in the UK, so NHS doctors must all be lying about how much money they need.
By Toms incredible arguments, he would have us believe that ANY organisation created by lying politicians (who are about 99.9% of them) should be discounted and not trusted. United Nations, and All of their research and studies, General medical councils, Federal aviation authority, Internal revenue services, federal reserve, National parks, justice systems, lawyers and parole boards, the list goes on and on and on.
OECD counties employ about 22% of its working population in the public (ie government sector) so all of those employees and industries are by Toms association liars and cannot be trusted.
-
These were not good people. They are not trustworthy. If they are willing to conduct a secret war then it is certainly no leap that they are willing to create some fake space achievements.
And yet, you can see the ISS from earth.
7 tourists have paid to visit it.
GPS works.
Satellite TV works.
etc. etc.
And there are a bunch of countries who have put things in space.
By all accounts Newton was a bit of an arse, often claiming credit for things which he at best co-invented. Doesn't mean his ideas are without merit.
I know you have to clutch at any straws you can but it's a bit of a leap from "NASA was formed by some bad dudes" to "All space travel has been faked for the last 60+ years"
I believe you mean:
"I can see a little dot for a brief time in the sky"
"7 tourists I have never met, and many of which who are investors or officers of space aerospace contractors, went into space"
"GPS and Satellite TV technologies, of which I do not have direct knowledge of, works"
Hardly convincing or conclusive.
Interesting that you have failed to explain how you believe satellite TV and GPS work.
-
Erasing one-of-a-kind scientific data on 200,000 tapes in bulk and losing moon rocks worth millions of dollars is no small thing. These are deliberate actions.
A million dollars' worth of moon rocks would be less than 20 grams. Even $100 million could be shipped by mail, so sure, they could have lost them. It would also be a fraction of the total samples.
As for the tapes, how did they even GET 200,000 tapes from only 6 Moon landings? I'd like to see a source for this, as well as what it was they were recording that was so much data.
-
I don't see the connection.
How does lying about the Vietnam war tie into NASA being a fraud? Is everything that happened during those administrators a lie as well because they covered up this secret war?
These were not good people. They are not trustworthy. If they are willing to conduct a secret war then is is certainly no leap that they are willing to create some fake space achievements. The credibility is shot.
Which ones exactly were the corrupt individuals? The whole administration?
And if they're credibility was lost after the secret war cover up then is it a stretch to say that 3 administrations straight lied about everything they did?
I see where you're going with "if they lied about x then what else are they willing to cover up?" but I can't see that as an excuse to dismiss everything by default, including incidents that have nothing to do with each other (NASA and the Vietnam war).
What do you mean the Vietnam War had nothing to do with NASA? NASA was created as a direct consequence of the Cold War.
Well that's my point right there.
NASA was not created because of the Vietnam war and we didn't enter Vietnam because of NASA. They are two separate incidents. They may have been during the same time period and under the same circumstances but that does not mean they are connected in any way other than those two reasons.
You're claiming that NASA is an organization of liars because the same politicians (Eisenhower) involved with the creation of it just so happened to be involved in the Vietnam war in which they (Johnson) tricked the American public and Congress into participating so they could run a secret war against China and communism. That's a pretty big stretch.
Governments are more than just a few people and the people who would have started this are long gone. "They" would need to carefully select their successors to make sure that the truth never gets out and I find it hard to believe "they" have gone on this long doing just that (and have grown to include even more people at the same time).
I have to say Tom, all this does is help cement the idea that things are actually in space. The fallout from the collapse of the USSR, the rivalry between the two. Neither side during that period was 'debunked' on going into space or orbit. Both sides had all the reason in the world to show they hadn't managed their claims. Hell, the US even after the collapse/fall had more than enough reason (if it was found to be so) to show how Russia and Russians never got into space. How could it have hurt their credibility at all in that time period? To me at least everything you've presented here points away from a now global conspiracy of space flight.
The countries did cast doubt and yell "fake!" after each achievement at the time. It took a long time for NASA to accept Russia's claim of the first man in space. Russian officials are still yelling "fake!" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3130017/Russian-official-demands-investigation-really-happened-moon-landing-original-footage-disappeared.html)
You have no idea what you are talking about. What are you are claiming what would happen has happened. The world just ignored it.
OK so if we've never been to space, and Russia has never believed we've been to space, who are we fooling? Wouldn't it be more effective to actually go to space than continue faking it and run the risk of having our bluff called?
Also if we're accepting Russia's claim of being the first to go to space how is that good for us. They could essentially wipe us all out with the press of a button, seeing as there's a huge military advantage to controlling space and all.
-
Erasing one-of-a-kind scientific data on 200,000 tapes in bulk and losing moon rocks worth millions of dollars is no small thing. These are deliberate actions.
A million dollars' worth of moon rocks would be less than 20 grams. Even $100 million could be shipped by mail, so sure, they could have lost them. It would also be a fraction of the total samples.
As for the tapes, how did they even GET 200,000 tapes from only 6 Moon landings? I'd like to see a source for this, as well as what it was they were recording that was so much data.
I think this was covered in another thread.
The ORIGINAL storage tapes were erased or destroyed, but the data contained on them was not was the answer i think that was shown.
Just because i have a picture or data, and transfer it to a different storage medium, and have lost or destroyed the original, it does not mean the data is lost.
As for the loss of moon samples, i think this article deals with it.
https://www.space.com/13878-nasa-apollo-moon-rocks-misplaced-lost-report.html
Most of what is unaccounted for has been sent out on loan, and someone has probably helped themselves to a bit of moon rock....i know that it might be tempting to some, as it would be for me!
As the samples were lost, or not returned intact (and this does not apply to ALL of them) then the loss is possible to have occurred in facilities not under NASAs control, so they are not part of the conspiracy.
Plus it was a Nasa internal audit that revealed the loss. Why would they do such a thing if it was going to fuel speculation? They can fake the moon landings, but cannot suppres an internal report that says that not all of the loaned samples have returned????
-
So toms point is;
Politicians lie.
Sorry to break it to you Tom, but i think it is a generally accepted principle that politicians lie, pretty much about everything.
They are liars. They have proven to be liars. They have lied continuously. Why should we believe liars?
By Toms incredible arguments, he would have us believe that ANY organisation created by lying politicians (who are about 99.9% of them) should be discounted and not trusted. United Nations, and All of their research and studies, General medical councils, Federal aviation authority, Internal revenue services, federal reserve, National parks, justice systems, lawyers and parole boards, the list goes on and on and on.
OECD counties employ about 22% of its working population in the public (ie government sector) so all of those employees and industries are by Toms association liars and cannot be trusted.
United Nations respectable research? Are you kidding?
The United Nations supports forced sterilization in Mexico (https://www.pop.org/unfpa-supports-forced-sterilization-in-mexico/), and has been caught sterilizing women in Kenya (https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/19497-doctors-un-vaccines-in-kenya-used-to-sterilize-women). The UN also supports forced abortion in China (https://www.pop.org/un-population-controllers-support-forced-abortion-lose-us-funding-2/).
The UN actively promotes various schemes for depopulation and has many studies which promote that agenda. UN Unveils Plot to Reduce African Population (https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/17291-un-unveils-plot-to-reduce-african-population). The UN's Agenda 21 states that the overarching goal is to lower humanity's numbers to about 500 Million.
According to you, we should just blindly follow along and not question our authorities or the conclusions from their scientific organizations.
-
So toms point is;
Politicians lie.
Sorry to break it to you Tom, but i think it is a generally accepted principle that politicians lie, pretty much about everything.
They are liars. They have proven to be liars. They have lied continuously. Why should we believe liars?
By Toms incredible arguments, he would have us believe that ANY organisation created by lying politicians (who are about 99.9% of them) should be discounted and not trusted. United Nations, and All of their research and studies, General medical councils, Federal aviation authority, Internal revenue services, federal reserve, National parks, justice systems, lawyers and parole boards, the list goes on and on and on.
OECD counties employ about 22% of its working population in the public (ie government sector) so all of those employees and industries are by Toms association liars and cannot be trusted.
United Nations respectable research? Are you kidding?
The United Nations supports forced sterilization in Mexico (https://www.pop.org/unfpa-supports-forced-sterilization-in-mexico/), and has been caught sterilizing women in Kenya (https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/19497-doctors-un-vaccines-in-kenya-used-to-sterilize-women). The UN also supports forced abortion in China (https://www.pop.org/un-population-controllers-support-forced-abortion-lose-us-funding-2/).
The UN actively promotes various schemes for depopulation and has many studies which promote that agenda. UN Unveils Plot to Reduce African Population (https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/17291-un-unveils-plot-to-reduce-african-population). The Georgia Guidestones and the UN's Agenda 21 state that the overarching goal is to lower humanity's numbers to about 500 Million.
According to you, we should just blindly follow along and not question our authorities or the conclusions from their scientific organizations.
Straw man Tom, and you know it.
Where did I say we need to “blindly follow along and not question our authorities”? There are many ways to question and hold to account public officials, but if i was to do this personally, I cannot ever trust anything. EVER.
However i do trust (mostly) advice from my doctor, who works in a professional capacity in an organisation created by politicians. If no one trusted a doctor then more people would die. Are you advocating disbelieving all doctors Tom?
You have been known to be wrong on numerous occasions, therefore your facts and data cannot be trusted. Therefore you have no standing in any of your comments, so why should I believe what you say about the politicians? That argument gets very circular.
You made the point that Nasa was not to be trusted because it was created by politicians who lied.
-
Straw man Tom, and you know it.
Where did I say we need to “blindly follow along and not question our authorities”? There are many ways to question and hold to account public officials, but if i was to do this personally, I cannot ever trust anything. EVER.
However i do trust (mostly) advice from my doctor, who works in a professional capacity in an organisation created by politicians. If no one trusted a doctor then more people would die. Are you advocating disbelieving all doctors Tom?
You have been known to be wrong on numerous occasions, therefore your facts and data cannot be trusted. Therefore you have no standing in any of your comments, so why should I believe what you say about the politicians? That argument gets very circular.
You made the point that Nasa was not to be trusted because it was created by politicians who lied.
Your argument seems to be exactly that we should trust our authorities. Yet you say that is not your argument?
You give the doctor example. But, you know what? You should not unquestionably trust you doctor on all matters either. You should research the matter for better alternatives. Consult a naturopathic doctor for alternatives to having to take harmful drugs. Traditional western doctors are not the be-all end-all of health. Some traditional western doctors will send you to get radiation-laden CT scans because they are cheaper than the safer MRI scans. Others will fill you with pain drugs rather than curing the issue. Still others will poison you with a variety of nasty drugs in attempt to kill the disease. There are natural alternatives for many conditions. Drugs are not always necessary.
Authority is not correct because it is the status quo. We should not automatically blindly believe or trust in anything. Why would you encourage such a thing? You should know why you believe in something, not blindly believe it out of ignorance! Anyone who is content to just "trust in authority" without care or knowledge of details or truth is a sad fool. This really reflects on the heart of these discussions.
-
Straw man Tom, and you know it.
Where did I say we need to “blindly follow along and not question our authorities”? There are many ways to question and hold to account public officials, but if i was to do this personally, I cannot ever trust anything. EVER.
However i do trust (mostly) advice from my doctor, who works in a professional capacity in an organisation created by politicians. If no one trusted a doctor then more people would die. Are you advocating disbelieving all doctors Tom?
You have been known to be wrong on numerous occasions, therefore your facts and data cannot be trusted. Therefore you have no standing in any of your comments, so why should I believe what you say about the politicians? That argument gets very circular.
You made the point that Nasa was not to be trusted because it was created by politicians who lied.
Your argument seems to be exactly that we should trust our authorities. Yet you say that is not your argument?
You give the doctor example. But, you know what? You should not unquestionably trust you doctor on all matters either. You should research the matter for better alternatives. Consult a naturopathic doctor for alternatives to having to take harmful drugs. Traditional western doctors are not the be-all end-all of health. Some traditional western doctors will send you to get radiation-laden CT scans because they are cheaper than the safer MRI scans. Others will fill you with pain drugs rather than curing the issue. Still others will poison you with a variety of nasty drugs in attempt to kill the disease. There are natural alternatives for many conditions. Drugs are not always necessary.
Authority is not correct because it is the status quo. We should not automatically blindly believe or trust in anything. Why would you encourage such a thing? You should know why you believe in something, not blindly believe it out of ignorance! Anyone who is content to just "trust in authority" without care or knowledge of details or truth is a sad fool. This really reflects on the heart of these discussions.
Wrong again Tom, i never said we need to trust our government without fail. Please feel free to quote me where i said that?
I was pointing out the flaw in Your argument that says because politicians were not open with all aspects of a conflict, they were lying, and therefore by creating an Agency, then whatever that agency subsequently reports is not to be believed either.
That might be your personal view, but because i do not agree with that view, does not mean by default that i then believe something you make up to be opposite to your statement.
That is putting words into my mouth, and saying I have beliefs, upon which you cannot possibly be certain.
I do trust some authorities, however my default is not automatically to distrust them. Mr Doctor i trust. I cannot help it if you dont trust your doctor, but then mine in the UK is not necessarily prescribing treatments that they make a profit from, or get kickbacks for doing so. Maybe it is different in your country.
“Natural” healers are unregulated in the UK (well some are) and as such can offer to sell snake juice and JuJu therapies, for which there is no real EVIDENCE of cures. I would offer that a patient that gets cured by some of these alternative therapies would have gotten better without it, but i cannot make a blanket statement to that effect, so dont do so.
When you fly (however if i had the same trust issues you appear to have I would NEVER fly) do you interrogate the pilot? If, like some, they learned to fly in the Air Force, do you ask the airline to change the pilot? Or disembark? They would have been trained by the military, so therefore cannot in any way be trusted as they were trained by the government.
There are degrees of trust, from blind faith to downright paranoia. I am in between, on the trusting side above the middle. I would hate to be so scared that i cannot rely upon anyone who has ever had any training or appointment made by the state.
-
You are implying that we should trust authorities because they are authorities. You were JUST implying that we should trust the United Nations. Then you backtracked.
Now you are arguing that we should trust our doctors.
http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/8919828/vitamin-c-cancer-treatment
Go home and die. that's what doctors told 59 year old Arlindo Olivera.
His lung cancer was so advanced, it had spread to his brain and doctors said there was nothing they could do.
Today, Arlindo is cancer free.
Arlindo Oliviera a Lung Cancer Survivor says "My pulmonary doctor told me, whatever you are doing, keep doing it."
Arlindo believes his cancer is gone because of vitamin C treatment.
Arlindo says "It's working on me from what the doctor says."
Dr. Scott Greenberg says he has successfully treated many people with vitamin C infusions, including Arlindo.
You are diagnosed with incurable Stage 4 lung and brain cancer and are told by your doctor to "go home and die." You have two choices.
1. You follow your doctor's advice and go home and die
2. You go to a naturopathic doctor for their intravenous "juju juice"
The doctor's advice is the only advice that is officially approved by the cancer industry, yet naturopathic doctors claim that they are able to help people with that condition and you seem to be able to find several similar news articles to the one above. What do you do? Will you trust in the authority and instructions of your doctor and the cancer industry or will you trust in your own research?
-
This thread is a good example of the way Tom works.
Picks up and runs with bits of argument he feels he can deal with, ignores other people's arguments which he can't.
Then runs off claiming victory.
Which brings us back to the topic of this thread. This is the conspiracy theorist mindset.
It requires ignoring the evidence which shows you to be wrong and clinging on to any shreds of evidence, no matter how flimsy, which appear to add weight to your belief.
It's a mess of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance - something we are all prone to, but something we need to be careful of as there can be serious consequences:
In 1968, a grandmother was raped and murdered in the middle of the night in her own living room. Then, in a nearby bedroom, her six-year-old granddaughter was raped, beaten and left for dead. However, she survived. When asked by the police to describe her attacker, whom she had seen for only a few seconds in the darkness before she was knocked unconscious, the six-year-old said that he looked like her uncle Clarence. After a couple of rounds of questioning by the police, they had converted that to it was Uncle Clarence, Clarence Elkins, and they concluded that he was the perpetrator. After that point, virtually every piece of evidence that was uncovered pointed away from Clarence Elkins as the perpetrator. But none of it swayed the police and prosecutors who had made up their minds.
Clarence’s wife testified that Clarence was with her several miles away in their home. She had been up most of the night with a sick child and would have known if Clarence had left. She certainly had no strong motive to protect the killer of her own mother. Although the murder house was a bloodbath, there was not a single fingerprint or hair traceable to Clarence. Nor could the police find blood on any item belonging to Clarence. They even looked in his shower drains to see if there was any blood from the victims. Nope. Nonetheless, the prosecution convicted Elkins, who had no criminal record, and sent him away for life.
When DNA testing advanced, the Ohio Innocence Project had new DNA tests performed that found semen from a male in the grandmother’s vaginal cavity and skin from the same male on the panties of the six-year-old. The DNA did not match Elkins. He clearly was not the perpetrator. Yet, when the OIP asked for Elkins’ exoneration, the prosecutors and police fought like wildcats with the most ridiculous arguments that one can imagine.
Even when the DNA was matched with a prisoner with a history of violent crimes who had been living just two doors away from the victims and admitted the crime, and resembled Elkins, the prosecutors still argued that Elkins was guilty. He just must have been accompanied by the real rapist, who the OIP dubbed an “unindicted co-ejaculator” because this is a typical prosecution reaction to exonerating DNA evidence. “OK, this new guy raped her. But the guy we charged raped her, too. He just somehow didn’t leave any physical traces at the scene of the crime” is the common response.
So much do police officers and prosecutors wish to believe that they did not send an innocent person to jail, cognitive dissonance causes their minds to accept the most outlandish theories and to reject the most compelling evidence. Their actions caused Elkins to remain in jail much longer than he should have given the overwhelming evidence of his obvious innocence.
http://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/cognitive-dissonance-case-unindicted-co-ejaculator
-
This thread is a good example of the way Tom works.
Picks up and runs with bits of argument he feels he can deal with, ignores other people's arguments which he can't.
Then runs off claiming victory.
Wrong. This thread is a good demonstration of the fallacious argument of "Conspiracies can't exist. There is no reason not to trust in authority."
I notice that no rebuttal was made to the existence of the Secret War, the United Nations population control techniques, or doctors telling people to die despite known treatments. I assure you that I can list one hundred other things that you will have no words for.
The danger is automatically believing in authority, not in questioning what you are told.
-
Wrong. This thread is a good example of the fallacious argument of "Conspiracies can't exist.
Straw man. Where has anyone said that?
The danger is automatically believing in authority, not in questioning what you are told.
Agreed, actually.
But you are guilty of the other extreme. You don't believe anything unless it fits in with your existing world view.
Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias writ large. See above.
-
Authority is not correct because it is the status quo. We should not automatically blindly believe or trust in anything. Why would you encourage such a thing? You should know why you believe in something, not blindly believe it out of ignorance! Anyone who is content to just "trust in authority" without care or knowledge of details or truth is a sad fool. This really reflects on the heart of these discussions.
You're simply cherry-picking which "authority" you wish to trust and which you don't, Tom.
In your daily life, you take hundreds of things for granted without question. If you truly questioned everything in front of you, your life would grind to a halt.
You've just singled out Flat Earth as the one thing / main thing that you're going to take issue with. You've cherry-picked it.
-
Wrong. This thread is a good example of the fallacious argument of "Conspiracies can't exist.
Straw man. Where has anyone said that?
You did. You are posting in a thread supporting the generalizations of "what Conspiracy Theorists believe..."
If you believe that conspiracies exist, then that makes you a... wait for it... Conspiracy Theorist.
You should just admit that it is a childish label applied in attempt to discredit people who are really just questioning what they are told.
Authority is not correct because it is the status quo. We should not automatically blindly believe or trust in anything. Why would you encourage such a thing? You should know why you believe in something, not blindly believe it out of ignorance! Anyone who is content to just "trust in authority" without care or knowledge of details or truth is a sad fool. This really reflects on the heart of these discussions.
You're simply cherry-picking which "authority" you wish to trust and which you don't, Tom.
In your daily life, you take hundreds of things for granted without question. If you truly questioned everything in front of you, your life would grind to a halt.
You've just singled out Flat Earth as the one thing / main thing that you're going to take issue with. You've cherry-picked it.
Why not question the world? Why not question what you are told? Maybe it is a better idea to know why you believe something rather than just accept it at face value. My ability to question all aspects of the world, and your inability or refusal to question, makes me smarter than you. You are promoting ignorance. One of us is open for growth and learning and the other is not.
-
Why not question the world? Why not question what you are told? Maybe it is a better idea to know why you believe something rather than just accept it at face value. My ability to question all aspects of the world, and your inability or refusal to question, makes me smarter than you. You are promoting ignorance. One of us is open for growth and learning and the other is not.
You're missing my point. You're cherry-picking what you choose to question while accepting multiple other 'authority statements' at face value. If you weren't, your life would come to a halt.
-
Wrong. This thread is a good example of the fallacious argument of "Conspiracies can't exist.
Straw man. Where has anyone said that?
You did. You are posting in a thread supporting the generalizations of "what Conspiracy Theorists believe..."
Wrong Tom, The title is “What Makes conspiracy theorists believe
Not What they believe. A rather important difference I believe.
-
My ability to question all aspects of the world, and your inability or refusal to question, makes me smarter than you. You are promoting ignorance. One of us is open for growth and learning and the other is not.
And in steps the narcissism mentioned in the article, only he (they) see through the veil, the special ones that dare to question, leaving us the sheeple to follow our masters.
That we dare to question the questioners makes us the agents of the deceitful state rather than a more discerning version of what he aspires to be.
-
You are implying that we should trust authorities because they are authorities. You were JUST implying that we should trust the United Nations. Then you backtracked.
Now you are arguing that we should trust our doctors.
Yet another Strawman tom. You dont ever seem to get it do you?
You made the connection that because politicians lied about one thing, and created Nasa, then Nasa having been created by the politicians were not to be trusted. Which would then follow that anything created by politicians should not be trusted.
I started a very small part of a long list of bodies that are/were created by politicians.
I never said that you must trust them implicitly. Please quote me where i wrote that. Otherwise you have to admit to your Strawman.
So world food programme, Save the Chiuldren, UNHCR, etc etc, all products of politicians are products of the UN, and Tom has clearly stated that they are not to be trusted.
You also listed a bunch of things, and then asked us to disprove them, well as you are fond of saying. Your claim you prove it. I dont need to prove a negative, but i am not going to accept your links until you provide me with the full evidence, witness statements, rebuttals and all side of the arguments you made.
“The New American” as a serious publication? Really Tom? Should we all rush out and get a subscription to that other uniquely American truth journal “the national enquirer” at the same time? You do realise that the rest of the world rather scoffs at publications like that. I would be rather embarrassed to use that New American as a source. Hardly impartial is it.
One thing it does show though is that there is obviously a certain type of thinking to people who support those trashy websites/publications, as it does seem to show that people like a good conspiracy theory, even if it has not a lot of supporters in the rest of the populace, and it does seem that some parts of the world may be more susceptible to wild theories than others.....
-
Why not question the world? Why not question what you are told? Maybe it is a better idea to know why you believe something rather than just accept it at face value. My ability to question all aspects of the world, and your inability or refusal to question, makes me smarter than you. You are promoting ignorance. One of us is open for growth and learning and the other is not.
[/quote]
I never said do not question the world. Holding authority to account is vital in a democracy. Without it you get abuse of power and dictatorship.
My point was that holding authority to account is healthy, and desirable.
Out and out mistrust and scepticism is counter productive.
I start from a position of cautious trust, and question, and if the questions are answered reasonably, then trust is gained more.
You on the other hand seem to be absolute mistrust of anyone and everything, and only to accept what fits with your perspective.
As for copying of a story about someone who got better, I have heard that quoted before in a number of places, and if true (i am sure you can provide evidence that it is an ACTUAL case, and the patient made a great recovery) there are hundreds/thousands/millions more cases where the doctors got it right.
I have been sick, i go to a doctor, i follow his advice I get better. That is the basis of my trust.
There are many many cases of sham JuJu healers who I have made people sick and die by getting them to try snake oil and magic potions (there is even the suggestion that Rowbotham did the same, i wonder if there is a connection there somehow???) others have made profits out of it, and some prey on terminally sick and consequently desperate people.
I would rather trust someone who has trained for years and years, is held accountable by public record, and by authorities to do a job, be it pilot, doctor, nurse, teacher, train driver, or whatever than to trust someone who might have my life in their hands who claims to have mystic powers and tells me to eat some potion or other, or has no official training, and has no recognisable qualifications.......
-
Why not question the world? Why not question what you are told?
So far, so reasonable.
Questioning things is a good thing.
But that isn’t what you do.
You simply accept anything blindly which confirms your world view and reject anything spuriously which does not.
Witness your response to the horizon dip experiments. They all - four different ways - show the same result, they all show that horizon dips.
But Rowbotham says different so you unquestioningly accept his results and you reject all the experiments which show a different result on spurious grounds. This is not a questioning mindset, it is confirmation bias.
And declaring yourself smart is fairly risible when you took 2 days to understand a simple experiment with a laser and a boat despite several people trying to explain it to you, and spent a good week failing to understand why the division between the duration of a year and the duration of a day doesn’t have to be an integer (still don’t think you’ve understood that).
-
Why not question the world? Why not question what you are told?
So far, so reasonable.
Questioning things is a good thing.
But that isn’t what you do.
You simply accept anything blindly which confirms your world view and reject anything spuriously which does not.
Witness your response to the horizon dip experiments. They all - four different ways - show the same result, they all show that horizon dips.
I think the best example of this is the shaq debacle.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5909.0
When Shaq agreed with his viewpoint his words were taken at face value and used as irrefutable evidence for FET. When it's revealed later that Shaq was joking his words became open to interpretation and the conspiracy was expanded to include his managers forcing him to retract his statements in any effort to reverse damage to his brand.
-
A point on collusion of govt agencies. As a general principle, the more widespread the supposed collusion, the less likely it is.
I have worked as an advisor to various government agencies for the greater part of my career. I am now retired, and have no reason to support any existing agency. Far from it.
My experience is that those who work in government are generally good people, are honest, and believe passionately (sometimes mistakenly) in what they do. I have experienced malpractice, but mostly within department level. The reason is that a large bureacracy, like any organisation, is composed of competing departments or units, often with conflicting objectives, and there is generally great rivalry. Any malpractice, if discovered by another department, is likely to be seized upon and capitalised to the political benefit of that department. It is the same in any organisation, public or private.
The main job of senior managers is to make sense of what subordinate departments are saying, and to settle the endless political rivalries.
And that is just within the organisation. Different government agencies in the same country tend to mistrust each other. Different agencies in different countries, forget any kind of collusion or cooperation.
-
I think the best example of this is the shaq debacle.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5909.0
When Shaq agreed with his viewpoint his words were taken at face value and used as irrefutable evidence for FET. When it's revealed later that Shaq was joking his words became open to interpretation and the conspiracy was expanded to include his managers forcing him to retract his statements in any effort to reverse damage to his brand.
Well, shit :D
Yes, that IS a perfect example. How embarrassing for Tom! And this is where confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance gets interesting.
People become completely illogical and will make more and more ridiculous claims as more and more evidence mounts to show they are wrong.
Anything other than admit they're wrong.
And Tom identifies so much with being a "flat earther" that this is very strong with him, very hard for him to think rationally and admit he is is mistaken.
Either that, or he's a troll. Quite hard to tell the difference.
-
Why not question the world? Why not question what you are told?
So far, so reasonable.
Questioning things is a good thing.
But that isn’t what you do.
You simply accept anything blindly which confirms your world view and reject anything spuriously which does not.
Witness your response to the horizon dip experiments. They all - four different ways - show the same result, they all show that horizon dips.
I think the best example of this is the shaq debacle.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5909.0
When Shaq agreed with his viewpoint his words were taken at face value and used as irrefutable evidence for FET. When it's revealed later that Shaq was joking his words became open to interpretation and the conspiracy was expanded to include his managers forcing him to retract his statements in any effort to reverse damage to his brand.
Fantastic. Really must be cringing for this to come back again ehTom?
You are that any authority needs to be challenged, yet you refused to accept that Shaq. Could be wrong, and he was an expertly in his field, as well as hoisting him on a pedestool as an authority to be taken seriously.
Who am I going to believe, a doctor of education; or you guys, who are not doctors of education?
You seemed to be very happy to believe that Doctor when you thought he was supporting your ideas, yet in their very thread you scoff at the idea of believing a doctor? I find it hard to find you credible in any way.
Then it all sort of went wrong....