Did we go to the moon?

[urge]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I didn't know it was a debated subject. After watching this video I'm not so sure anymore. Seems like all the pictures were doctored. What do you guys think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35WtFWjSjt4&feature=related

 

[Monty Python]

I didn't know it was a debated subject. After watching this video I'm not so sure anymore. Seems like all the pictures were doctored. What do you guys think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35WtFWjSjt4&feature=related

1. Physicists continue to use the laser reflectors placed on the moon's surface by Apollo astronauts to measure various astronomical phenomena.

2. I've had the pleasure of meeting several Navy astronauts in person, shaking their hands, getting their autographs, etc, including Capt. Jim Lovell, USN (ret) of Apollo 13 fame, and Capt. Eugene Cernan, USN (ret) who was the mission commander of Apollo 17 and the last man to walk on the moon. One of two things is going on: (1) either they're both excellent liars and I'm the stupidest person ever born, or (2) their astronaut stories are the stuff of true heroes.

3. If it was a conspiracy, there would have been tens of thousands NASA workers in on the secret. Someone would have come forth by now, spilling all the beans to the National Enquirer.

Although, as Astronaut Ed Mitchell (moonwalker on Apollo 14) said just yesterday, we've been visited by aliens and NASA is fully aware. 😱 😕

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ms-aliens-HAVE-contact--covered-60-years.html


"I want the truth"
" SON, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH."

 

[urge]

1. Physicists continue to use the laser reflectors placed on the moon's surface by Apollo astronauts to measure various astronomical phenomena.

2. I've had the pleasure of meeting several Navy astronauts in person, shaking their hands, getting their autographs, etc, including Capt. Jim Lovell, USN (ret) of Apollo 13 fame, and Capt. Eugene Cernan, USN (ret) who was the mission commander of Apollo 17 and the last man to walk on the moon. One of two things is going on: (1) either they're both excellent liars and I'm the stupidest person ever born, or (2) their astronaut stories are the stuff of true heroes.

3. If it was a conspiracy, there would have been tens of thousands NASA workers in on the secret. Someone would have come forth by now, spilling all the beans to the National Enquirer.

Although, as Astronaut Ed Mitchell (moonwalker on Apollo 14) said just yesterday, we've been visited by aliens and NASA is fully aware. 😱 😕

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ms-aliens-HAVE-contact--covered-60-years.html


"I want the truth"
" SON, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH."

Did you see the video? It's pretty convincing by my standards. And, yeah, military people lie all the time.

 

[cfdavid]

I always questioned the whole flag waving in a zero atmosphere environment.

But, perhaps they doctored that part for a better effect (the U.S. flag waving in the "wind" during the cold war against the Soviets), not realizing that it could be used to discredit the operation.

 

[pgg]

What do you guys think?

Up until a minute ago, I thought you were a trained scientist and critical thinker.

 

[dfk]

I always questioned the whole flag waving in a zero atmosphere environment.

But, perhaps they doctored that part for a better effect (the U.S. flag waving in the "wind" during the cold war against the Soviets), not realizing that it could be used to discredit the operation.

yes, and what about the 'sand' flying in it's zero "pattern" as well.
i just don't know if i believe it.

 

[Apollyon]

Man, you guys are insane. Crazy. Foolish, perhaps.

As much as I say wikipedia sucks, the whole moon hoax is covered point by point.

Damn, people, do some research!

 

[Apollyon]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrI3iQqTdns[/YOUTUBE]

Watch a 30 minute time lapse of the flag NOT MOVING.

 

[aredoubleyou]

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23Feb_2.htm


Yea, wikipedia too

 

[Trisomy13]

I killed JFK.

 

[zippy2u]

The strangest encounter I had with another human happened around 12 years ago in a small Texas town... I had been runnin' around these small Texas towns with tags from a different state and no auto insurance and it was gettin' old with the local gestapo. Walked into a local Mom and Pop insurance co. and told the lady I wanted just enough car insurance to make me legal. The lady was probably in her late 40s with a strange cadence to her speech, alone, and I was the only customer. We sat down at her desk and she started goin' over the paperworks. She had a sleeveless blouse on and I noticed she had strange, shiny metallic markings on both arms--like hieroglyphic tattoos. I asked her about them and she oddly began to speak in a hushed tone of voice. Apparently, she had been abducted by an alien spacecraft and the "Greys" (as she called them) stenciled in these markings on her arms so that in the future she would be readily identifiable by them when they returned. She went on to say that while in the spacecraft she had been instilled or infused with some of the characteristics of the "Greys" so that in future "Grey" visits, the Earthlings wouldn't panic and be too alarmed. I pressed her for details but she was rather vague and mentioned that "the MIBs had visited me shortly after my abduction and made threatening overtones." Holy Greylings, Batman... it was about this time I thanked the lucky stars that her office was situated so that I was between the outside door and this nutjob. I signed the forms, paid for 6 months and never saw the lady again. Strange experience , indeed! Regards, ---Zip

 

[TheSandMan]

The strangest encounter I had with another human happened around 12 years ago in a small Texas town... I had been runnin' around these small Texas towns with tags from a different state and no auto insurance and it was gettin' old with the local gestapo. Walked into a local Mom and Pop insurance co. and told the lady I wanted just enough car insurance to make me legal. The lady was probably in her late 40s with a strange cadence to her speech, alone, and I was the only customer. We sat down at her desk and she started goin' over the paperworks. She had a sleeveless blouse on and I noticed she had strange, shiny metallic markings on both arms--like hieroglyphic tattoos. I asked her about them and she oddly began to speak in a hushed tone of voice. Apparently, she had been abducted by an alien spacecraft and the "Greys" (as she called them) stenciled in these markings on her arms so that in the future she would be readily identifiable by them when they returned. She went on to say that while in the spacecraft she had been instilled or infused with some of the characteristics of the "Greys" so that in future "Grey" visits, the Earthlings wouldn't panic and be too alarmed. I pressed her for details but she was rather vague and mentioned that "the MIBs had visited me shortly after my abduction and made threatening overtones." Holy Greylings, Batman... it was about this time I thanked the lucky stars that her office was situated so that I was between the outside door and this nutjob. I signed the forms, paid for 6 months and never saw the lady again. Strange experience , indeed! Regards, ---Zip

OMG thats one of the funniest posts i've read in a while.

When I first saw that video a while back, I was surprised by how shockingly convincing it was. But then I read up on the video and realized how distorted the presentation was. Anything to make a buck I guess.

 

[cfdavid]

Up until a minute ago, I thought you were a trained scientist and critical thinker.

Trained scientists and critical thinkers are taught to always question current ideology.

I'm not necessarily speaking to this moon issue, but to suggest that because the government says it's so, means it's so, is completely naive.

Is it that hard to imagine a circumstance where our government (intelligence community etc.) would attempt to disseminate not-so-true information as a means of driving public sentiment? This is always done in wartime, both to influence the enemy, as well as to drive public opinion at home.

Is it that hard to imagine that during the Cold War, with huge stakes involved that literally could have involved the collapse of many Western governments, that governments weren't spinning information in order to boost morale at home, paint the enemy in a negative light regardless of the truth of that information, created certain "false flag" operations (Gulf of Tonkin) in order to gain sentiment to support war, or any number of objectives???

Apparently you've studied extensively, the lunar landing scenario. Good for you. Perhaps Urge has not, and just passed this on. He at least kept an open mind.

What about the way in which Scott Ritter has been discredited for speaking out against issues relative to WMD's? Do you think this was by accident? Or does it serve a purpose? And to whom does it serve? Or do you just soak up whatever the mainstream media spews?

It is what it is, but to suggest that anyone that challenges conventional wisdom is NOT a critical thinker is ridiculous.

 

[urge]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrI3iQqTdns[/YOUTUBE]

Watch a 30 minute time lapse of the flag NOT MOVING.

Hey, they "went" to the moon 6 times. By the 6th voyage/movie they would have had worked out all the cinematic glitches. I pressume. Anyway, still looks funny to me. The flag stood up straight despite the moon's gravity. It should have folded down by its own weight in little time. Don't you think? Everything from the videos comes down to the floor pretty quickly. Including dust which is a lot lighter than the flag. Explain that to me.

The people mad at me should realize that it's healthy to question authority.

 

[cfdavid]

I haven't watched this series. But, it's entirely plausible that during a time of major national competition during the Cold War against the USSR, our defense and intelligence community could 1) at the very least have modified videos and pictures so as to accentuate the feat (not realizing they might be used in the future to question the entire validity of the operation), and 2) have made it up, even if by only a few months (remember, the Soviets claimed victory to be first to surpass the stratosphere, and that drastically upped the anti).

This is why it was called the "Cold" War. It was fought by proxy (Vietnam, Cuba and Afghanastan) and with intelligence (MAJOR mis/dis information coming from both sides), but with no direct confrontation b/t the US and USSR.

So, who's really being naive here?

 

[zippy2u]

At the time, it was rather unnerving to say the least because this lady was totally serious, unassuming, and lucid with almost robotic mannerisms. No "ahs" and "ums" in her speech pattern. No nervous tics or freaky athetoid movements like ya see with the crackheads. I laughed when she called herself "a half-breed Grey", but she didn't laugh. Large,smoky grey-green eyes that seemed to be soul-piercing. To this day I still get goosebumps... Regards, ----Zippy

 

[urge]

At the time, it was rather unnerving to say the least because this lady was totally serious, unassuming, and lucid with almost robotic mannerisms. No "ahs" and "ums" in her speech pattern. No nervous tics or freaky athetoid movements like ya see with the crackheads. I laughed when she called herself "a half-breed Grey", but she didn't laugh. Large,smoky grey-green eyes that seemed to be soul-piercing. To this day I still get goosebumps... Regards, ----Zippy

You don't believe in aliens?

 

[Gimlet]

Hey, they "went" to the moon 6 times. By the 6th voyage/movie they would have had worked out all the cinematic glitches. I pressume. Anyway, still looks funny to me. The flag stood up straight despite the moon's gravity. It should have folded down by its own weight in little time. Don't you think? Everything from the videos comes down to the floor pretty quickly. Including dust which is a lot lighter than the flag. Explain that to me.

The flag has a beam across the top attached to the pole to hold the flag out. It's a rigid structure.

 

[urge]

The flag has a beam across the top attached to the pole to hold the flag out. It's a rigid structure.

I thought about that but didn't see any indication of any bream. Did you see the beam? If so, show me.

 

[pgg]

The people mad at me should realize that it's healthy to question authority.

I'm not mad at you. I'm mocking you. 😉

It's healthy to be skeptical of government claims - for example, to question whether pre-war intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq was manipulated.

But the moon landings?!? What's next? A conspiracy to falsify fossil evidence to prop up the 6000-year-old-earth-society? How about the atomic theory of matter? It's just a theory! Surely the plum pudding theory deserves equal time!

There is a point at which the preponderance of available, reviewable, reproducable historical and experimental data just makes debates of this nature absurd. It's the worst kind of pseudointellectualism to give these crackpot conspiracy theorists serious attention. You take pride in having an open mind, but you're really just being gullible - ie, you don't recognize the huge difference between

• a healthy skepticism for extraordinary claims, and
• an irrational skepticism for "conventional" accepted knowledge, which is twisted around into a shocking lack of skepticism for extraordinary conspiracy theory claims

Rational people with open minds are skeptical of extraordinary claims that run counter to conventional wisdom and accumulated data.

Gullible people are eager to embrace or give "equal time" or "due consideration" to fringe theories (to quote one particular Kansas school board); in contrast, they are inconsistently and excessively skeptical of conventional wisdom and accumulated data. This is not wisdom, this is not maturity, this is not worthy of anything other than public scorn and ridicule.

Enjoy your "healthy" debate, nutters. 🙂

 

[zippy2u]

Urge, I'm more inclined to believe in Aliens than religious dieties. I wish the Mofos would hurry up and get their arses to Earth so we can begin to deep 6 all these religions. Who needs a God when ya got an Alien? Yo squeak, just park the saucer right in Central Park in NYC, we'll take it from there... Regards, ---Zippy

 

[dfk]

I thought about that but didn't see any indication of any bream. Did you see the beam? If so, show me.

watch the video, and at about 12 seconds in from the time the commentator says they are starting to count (also see digital counter bottom right), the astronaut is holding the flag by the alleged beam. the flag is not ruffling at all at that location. so, clearly, there's something there to stiffen the top of the flag.
and also notice too that the only part of the flag that moves is the bottom corner opposite the pole. wouldn't the entire thing wave?
hoax i tell ya.

 

[Trisomy13]

I'm not mad at you. I'm mocking you. 😉

It's healthy to be skeptical of government claims - for example, to question whether pre-war intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq was manipulated.

But the moon landings?!? What's next? A conspiracy to falsify fossil evidence to prop up the 6000-year-old-earth-society? How about the atomic theory of matter? It's just a theory! Surely the plum pudding theory deserves equal time!

There is a point at which the preponderance of available, reviewable, reproducable historical and experimental data just makes debates of this nature absurd. It's the worst kind of pseudointellectualism to give these crackpot conspiracy theorists serious attention. You take pride in having an open mind, but you're really just being gullible - ie, you don't recognize the huge difference between

• a healthy skepticism for extraordinary claims, and
• an irrational skepticism for "conventional" accepted knowledge, which is twisted around into a shocking lack of skepticism for extraordinary conspiracy theory claims

Rational people with open minds are skeptical of extraordinary claims that run counter to conventional wisdom and accumulated data.

Gullible people are eager to embrace or give "equal time" or "due consideration" to fringe theories (to quote one particular Kansas school board); in contrast, they are inconsistently and excessively skeptical of conventional wisdom and accumulated data. This is not wisdom, this is not maturity, this is not worthy of anything other than public scorn and ridicule.

Enjoy your "healthy" debate, nutters. 🙂

well said. thank you.

 

[climbingdocs]

I believe in aliens. Why not? Also I don't believe government. Don't you people watch x-files?? hehe. Has anyone saw the conspiracy theory on 911? That one would be interesting to talk about too.

 

[cfdavid]

I'm not mad at you. I'm mocking you. 😉

It's healthy to be skeptical of government claims - for example, to question whether pre-war intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq was manipulated.

But the moon landings?!? What's next? A conspiracy to falsify fossil evidence to prop up the 6000-year-old-earth-society? How about the atomic theory of matter? It's just a theory! Surely the plum pudding theory deserves equal time!

There is a point at which the preponderance of available, reviewable, reproducable historical and experimental data just makes debates of this nature absurd. It's the worst kind of pseudointellectualism to give these crackpot conspiracy theorists serious attention. You take pride in having an open mind, but you're really just being gullible - ie, you don't recognize the huge difference between

• a healthy skepticism for extraordinary claims, and
• an irrational skepticism for "conventional" accepted knowledge, which is twisted around into a shocking lack of skepticism for extraordinary conspiracy theory claims

Rational people with open minds are skeptical of extraordinary claims that run counter to conventional wisdom and accumulated data.

Gullible people are eager to embrace or give "equal time" or "due consideration" to fringe theories (to quote one particular Kansas school board); in contrast, they are inconsistently and excessively skeptical of conventional wisdom and accumulated data. This is not wisdom, this is not maturity, this is not worthy of anything other than public scorn and ridicule.

Enjoy your "healthy" debate, nutters. 🙂

In the spirit of debating the broader issue, why don't you tell us what historically "conventional" event(s) and accumulated data (where did the data come from, who stands to gain from the acceptance of the data, and is the data even verifiable) you feel may NOT be accurate, or the product of intentional misinformation.

 

[cfdavid]

I believe in aliens. Why not? Also I don't believe government. Don't you people watch x-files?? hehe. Has anyone saw the conspiracy theory on 911? That one would be interesting to talk about too.

Kick it off then.

 

[climbingdocs]

Kick it off then.

ok for starters,
I believe the towers didn't collapse just from the planes. I think there were some "extra" explosions going on. I don't think they would collapse so nicely.

 

[otho]

You don't believe in aliens?

So the aliens travelled thousands of light years across the galaxy, visited Texas and then went home. What's so hard to believe about that?

While I have not actual seen an alien or a UFO, I think it is pretentious to think that we are the only civilization in the universe. If there are other civilizations then it is possible that they are thousands of years more advanced than we are. Of course there is life out there. Look at how many billions and billions of stars (suns) there are just in our galaxy. The figures are something like, if .0001% of the stars were suns like our own and .0001% of those had planets around them the odds were something like millions earth like planets. Just in our galaxy. There are many, many galaxies. Both larger and smaller than our own.

We are not alone!

UFO Investigators Flock to Stephenville, Texas


Investigation Opens After 30 Residents Claim They Saw a UFO Flying Over Their Town


By MIKE VON FREMD
Jan. 18, 2008

352 comments


UFO investigators, flock to Stephenville, Texas!
A team of six investigators from the Mutual UFO Network will be interviewing citizens of Stephenville, Texas, who say they spotted a UFO at sunset on Jan. 8.

Could there be proof of intelligent beings visiting Earth?


The Mutual UFO Network is a nongovernmental group interested in documenting UFOs. State director Ken Cherry says that the network has received calls from 50 citizens who say they witnessed the UFO and that the number and credibility of the people is exceptional.
The rural Texas town has attracted worldwide attention after the sightings. The Stephenville Empire-Tribune, the local newspaper, has received calls from as far away as Finland and Japan as people remain fascinated about the reports of a bright object in the sky that witnesses say was a mile long.
It remains the talk of the town and the Stephenville High School Science Club is now selling T-shirts to cash in on the craze.
Stephenville prides itself on being the dairy capital of Texas and the shirts that sell for $10 have a picture of a Holstein cow being beamed up to a flying saucer.

Not Just Tabloid News

More than 30 residents of Stephenville, Texas, claim to have seen a UFO, described as a mile-wide, silent object with bright lights, flying low and fast. And now it's actual front-page news. So what was it?
"It was very intense, bright lights," said local newspaper reporter Angela Joyner.

"The lights were like going like this," said Constable Leroy Gateman making hand gestures to describe what he saw when he spotted the UFO.
Rick Sorrells says he saw it while he was hunting deer in the woods.
"You look at the trees, and it was right here," Sorrells told ABC News correspondent Mike Von Fremd as he showed him the location in the woods where he spotted the UFO.
Steve Allen, a 50-year-old pilot, was at a campfire with friends and says the object was a mile long and half a mile wide. "I don't know if it was a biblical experience or somebody from a different universe or whatever but it was definitely not from around these parts," Allen said.
Allen drew a sketch of the object, which he said traveled at amazing speed without making a sound. While drawing, Allen told Von Fremd that he saw "an arch shape converted in a vertical shape, and then it split and made two of them, and then these turned into just fire and it was gone."
A spokesman for the 301st Fighter Wing in Fort Worth says no aircraft from his base was in the area, and says the objects may have been an illusion caused by two commercial airplanes. But those who saw the lights don't buy that explanation.
"It's an unidentified flying object," insisted a former Air Force technician.
"It was so fast I couldn't track it with my binoculars," said Gateman.

Constable Leroy Gateman describes what he saw in the sky.
Some in Stephenville are a bit embarrassed about all the attention. "It's crazy," said one teenage girl in town.
UFO Investigators Flock to Stephenville, Texas


Investigation Opens After 30 Residents Claim They Saw a UFO Flying Over Their Town



"A lot of folks aren't used to this kind of thing. They are not UFO nuts or anything like that around here," said City Councilman Mark Murphy.

Like it or not, all eyes are now trained on the sky over Stephenville to see whether any mysterious flying objects return.

 

[cfdavid]

ok for starters,
I believe the towers didn't collapse just from the planes. I think there were some "extra" explosions going on. I don't think they would collapse so nicely.

I tend to agree. Also, what about Tower 7?? If that wasn't a controlled implosion, I don't know what one is.

Here's another point. Say Tower 7 was demolished professionally due to any variety of real world factors. This isn't to jump to the conclusion that therefore, the whole 911 story is a hoax. It just means that perhaps we didn't get the real deal on the reason for Tower 7's collapse (officially due to fire, but that would be a historical 1st (or 3rd given Towers 1&2) for a steel building to collapse due to any fire.

So, like I said, at least in terms of Tower 7, it doesn't mean it was "insert alternative theory here". But, it could have been something as "benign" as the city already had so much collateral damage in the area and to the building that it needed to go, and the public was just fed an incorrect explanation for any number of reasons.

OR, a very well connected and wealthy owner of the Towers could seriously have used the event as a perfect opportunity to commit insurance fraud. He'd have the cash to keep it quiet as well as to battle the insurance company(s) in court. Given that everything is relative, this explanation isn't all that different than the homeowner that sets his house ablaze on "Devil's Night" in Detroit. He's hoping to capitalize on the mayhem of the evening, in order to gain insurance reimbursement. To him, 100k is a lot. To Mr. Silverstein, he's in a whole different world, but the morality is virtually the same. So, why would this come as such a horrid shock to some people? Again, who knows, but when analyzing the circumstances of T-7, it seems that any potential explanation should be on the table.

Who knows. But, the fact that people use critical thinking to analyze (as well as to read testimony of experts in structural architecture and even the buildings' designers themselves) to begin questioning "conventional" wisdom doesn't mean anybody is suggesting it was an "inside job" or whatever. Granted if that's what you believe, by all means, present information to the rest of us.

In other words that we have very little credible information on the real cause of Tower 7's collapse and even less information on what actually hit the Pentagon is not mutually exclusive to believing in the conventional explanations for the rest of the events of 911.

 

[urge]

I'm on my cell. I'll have to check the flag videos some other day. Anyway, I was wondering if there were a beam, why did he have to hold the flag "where the beam would be". I'll look into it later.

Regarding 911, there is some awesome stuff in you tube. Look it up.

 

[pgg]

In the spirit of debating the broader issue,

No thank you.

I can't believe this has devolved into a 9/11 Truther thread. I have to say I'm actually embarrassed for the anesthesiology forum.

 

[urge]

No thank you.

I can't believe this has devolved into a 9/11 Truther thread. I have to say I'm actually embarrassed for the anesthesiology forum.

Pgg, You portray yourself as an authority figure in this matter. Yet, what did we tell you? -always doubt authority. The harder you try the more we'll doubt about you.

And yeah, I think you were mad. Mad at the fact that your infallible institutions were being questioned.

On aliens: their existance will be public pretty soon I imagine. The catholic church is already getting ready for this. They said aliens might exist and doesn't interfere with their doctrine. Wow, isn't that crazy, considering they were killing people a few hundred years ago for looking funny?

 

[cfdavid]

No thank you.

I can't believe this has devolved into a 9/11 Truther thread. I have to say I'm actually embarrassed for the anesthesiology forum.

Nice cop out. It must be pretty difficult for you.

Just keep on listening to everything Wolf Blitzer reports and you'll be all set dude.

 

[cfdavid]

Pgg, You portray yourself as an authority figure in this matter. Yet, what did we tell you? -always doubt authority. The harder you try the more we'll doubt about you.

And yeah, I think you were mad. Mad at the fact that your infallible institutions were being questioned.
On aliens: their existance will be public pretty soon I imagine. The catholic church is already getting ready for this. They said aliens might exist and doesn't interfere with their doctrine. Wow, isn't that crazy, considering they were killing people a few hundred years ago for looking funny?

Exactly. He's not alone though. Frankly, it was hard for me as well, when I started realizing how corrupt power can be. And how the misuse of information has been a major tool to manipulate public opinion, discourse, and to drive various objectives.

Does this mean that everything coming out of CBS is misinformation? No, ofcourse not. It's just really important to look at the major issues and the powers behind world events, and then use your own mind to make decisions based upon a broader evaluation of data than that being presented to us.

Personally, I've come to believe in very few coincidences. Do you guys actually think it's a coincidence when the various political pundits on prime-time news ask questions such as "would you allow for waterboarding if you had critical intelligence on..." to our candidates?? Clearly there are more pressing issues to discuss. And I don't buy into the old notion that Americans have such short attention spans that we can't sit through a 1 hour debate on substantive issues.

If you pay attention, you'll see how complicit the media really is in dumbing down the issues, and worse.

 

[pgg]

Nice cop out. It must be pretty difficult for you.

Just keep on listening to everything Wolf Blitzer reports and you'll be all set dude.

Hardly a cop out. I already said I wasn't going to waste my time debating these issues with you. And when you bring up the next one - maybe it'll be a "healthy" discussion of the methods early humans used to domesticate dinosaurs - I won't dignify that absurdity with comment either.

But it's interesting that you're continuing in your pattern of drawing conclusions without evidence, and choosing to believe what you want to believe. You've apparently decided that (a) I watch TV, (b) I listen to network news, (c) I believe everything they say, and (d) I hold Wolf Blitzer in such high regard that I believe everything he says too. And none of these are true.

Pgg, You portray yourself as an authority figure in this matter. Yet, what did we tell you? -always doubt authority. The harder you try the more we'll doubt about you.

And yeah, I think you were mad. Mad at the fact that your infallible institutions were being questioned.

Infallible institutions?

You too are choosing to believe what you want to believe. I laugh at you for seriously discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories and Hollywood moon landings, and you decide I'm an automaton who believes everything I'm told.

I was more skeptical at age 5 when I first decided to have no part in any religion or superstition than you hook-line-sinker-9/11-Truther guys are now.

On aliens: their existance will be public pretty soon I imagine. The catholic church is already getting ready for this. They said aliens might exist and doesn't interfere with their doctrine. Wow, isn't that crazy, considering they were killing people a few hundred years ago for looking funny?

It's interesting that you take your cues on reality from a church. Of all the things we know about life, the universe, and everything - from the size of the universe and how stars form to evolution itself - there are plenty of plausible, rational arguments that life may well be common throughout the universe. But you single out a policy change or clarification in doctrine from a church as somehow convincing that extraterrestrials have visited earth?

I think it's quite likely that life, even intelligent life, exists elsewhere in the universe. That's quite a different question than whether or not they've ever visited earth or if any governments have covered up such visits. All three of these propositions are extraordinary claims, all three deserve healthy skepticism, and all three should require more than Youtube videos with dramatic music and re-re-re-interpretations of church doctrine to be taken seriously.

Once again, you guys are failing a very simple test. You aren't making a distinction between

• healthy skepticism of extraordinary claims, and
• irrational skepticism of conventional common knowledge, coupled with insufficient skepticism of the extraordinary claims conspiracy theorists make

It is wise and healthy to be skeptical of everyone and everything, to always look for ulterior motives, to carefully consider how others may be trying to manipulate you by presenting partial truths or outright lies. But this does not mean every single counterculture underground conspiracy theory is deserving of solemn public debate.

You call yourselves skeptics, but you're embarrassingly eager to believe in shockingly complex, far-reaching conspiracy theories. Perhaps you need to look up the word skeptical in a dictionary?

And I don't buy into the old notion that Americans have such short attention spans that we can't sit through a 1 hour debate on substantive issues.

If you pay attention, you'll see how complicit the media really is in dumbing down the issues, and worse.

Here's something we can agree on. TV news is worthless if not harmful, and the rest of the ad-driven media world isn't far behind.


Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go polish some more anti-radar shine into my black helicopter, and then I need to tune into Wolf Blitzer to catch tonight's mission from the codes he'll blink during the broadcast. You guys keep talking. Pay no attention to the "Karpet Kleaners" van parked across the street.

 

[Monty Python]

Hardly a cop out. I already said I wasn't going to waste my time debating these issues with you. And when you bring up the next one - maybe it'll be a "healthy" discussion of the methods early humans used to domesticate dinosaurs - I won't dignify that absurdity with comment either.

But it's interesting that you're continuing in your pattern of drawing conclusions without evidence, and choosing to believe what you want to believe. You've apparently decided that (a) I watch TV, (b) I listen to network news, (c) I believe everything they say, and (d) I hold Wolf Blitzer in such high regard that I believe everything he says too. And none of these are true.






Infallible institutions?

You too are choosing to believe what you want to believe. I laugh at you for seriously discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories and Hollywood moon landings, and you decide I'm an automaton who believes everything I'm told.

I was more skeptical at age 5 when I first decided to have no part in any religion or superstition than you hook-line-sinker-9/11-Truther guys are now.



It's interesting that you take your cues on reality from a church. Of all the things we know about life, the universe, and everything - from the size of the universe and how stars form to evolution itself - there are plenty of plausible, rational arguments that life may well be common throughout the universe. But you single out a policy change or clarification in doctrine from a church as somehow convincing that extraterrestrials have visited earth?

I think it's quite likely that life, even intelligent life, exists elsewhere in the universe. That's quite a different question than whether or not they've ever visited earth or if any governments have covered up such visits. All three of these propositions are extraordinary claims, all three deserve healthy skepticism, and all three should require more than Youtube videos with dramatic music and re-re-re-interpretations of church doctrine to be taken seriously.

Once again, you guys are failing a very simple test. You aren't making a distinction between

• healthy skepticism of extraordinary claims, and
• irrational skepticism of conventional common knowledge, coupled with insufficient skepticism of the extraordinary claims conspiracy theorists make

It is wise and healthy to be skeptical of everyone and everything, to always look for ulterior motives, to carefully consider how others may be trying to manipulate you by presenting partial truths or outright lies. But this does not mean every single counterculture underground conspiracy theory is deserving of solemn public debate.

You call yourselves skeptics, but you're embarrassingly eager to believe in shockingly complex, far-reaching conspiracy theories. Perhaps you need to look up the word skeptical in a dictionary?



Here's something we can agree on. TV news is worthless if not harmful, and the rest of the ad-driven media world isn't far behind.


Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go polish some more anti-radar shine into my black helicopter, and then I need to tune into Wolf Blitzer to catch tonight's mission from the codes he'll blink during the broadcast. You guys keep talking. Pay no attention to the "Karpet Kleaners" van parked across the street.

This is really getting interesting. Kudos for the well-grounded philosophical arguments.

I'd personally like to know who shot JFK, but more importantly, why?

 

[urge]

It's interesting that you take your cues on reality from a church. Of all the things we know about life, the universe, and everything - from the size of the universe and how stars form to evolution itself - there are plenty of plausible, rational arguments that life may well be common throughout the universe. But you single out a policy change or clarification in doctrine from a church as somehow convincing that extraterrestrials have visited earth?

So, the authority figure is trying to distort reality once more. I didn't imply that aliens exist because the church changed its doctrine. I meant it as an example on how an archaic institution is getting ready for the inevitable.

Thousands, if not millions, reports of UFO from different places and people with nothing to gain from it is enough evidence for me.


On JFK, he was killed because he wanted to RETURN the money printing responsibility to the government, instead of private bankers like it has been since the 20's(the great depression was orchestrated by the newly created Federal Reserve, it wasn't chance). Private bankers control the Federal Reserve(private entity, nothing to do with the government, btw) and hence control all the money in the US. They can expand the money supply and suddenly cut it in half. Bankrupting everyone along the way. Repossesing their property is their goal. They wouldn't want to give that power back without a fight. JFK was on their way and he didn't last too long.

Do yourselves a favor and read on the motives to create the Federal Reserve.

 

[pgg]

Thousands, if not millions, reports of UFO from different places and people with nothing to gain from it is enough evidence for me.

That's setting the bar awfully low. You may be correct about aliens, but isn't it a little early for a "skeptic" to be a true believer? Me, I want to see a glowing finger or two hand me some Reese's Pieces before I declare my faith.

Alien visits and government coverups are extraordinary claims. Once again, your skepticism is backwards - you reject the simplest explanation (mistaken eyewitnesses, no visits, no conspiracy, no coverup) and you're embracing something remarkable: alien spacecraft with the technology to visit earth but not avoid detection by people only equipped with their eyeballs, and a massive decades-long conspiracy of who-knows-how-many people and governments / "infallible institutions" (whose existence you smirked about a few posts ago).

Remember that thousands, if not millions, of people used to believe lots of things that weren't true because they didn't understand what their senses told them.

• ground flat for as far as you can see = earth must be flat
• sticks burn = must be the element 'fire' within the stick being released
• drought and a plague of locusts o'er the land = god's angry

 

[jetproppilot]

That's setting the bar awfully low. You may be correct about aliens, but isn't it a little early for a "skeptic" to be a true believer? Me, I want to see a glowing finger or two hand me some Reese's Pieces before I declare my faith.

Alien visits and government coverups are extraordinary claims. Once again, your skepticism is backwards - you reject the simplest explanation (mistaken eyewitnesses, no visits, no conspiracy, no coverup) and you're embracing something remarkable: alien spacecraft with the technology to visit earth but not avoid detection by people only equipped with their eyeballs, and a massive decades-long conspiracy of who-knows-how-many people and governments / "infallible institutions" (whose existence you smirked about a few posts ago).

Remember that thousands, if not millions, of people used to believe lots of things that weren't true because they didn't understand what their senses told them.

• ground flat for as far as you can see = earth must be flat
• sticks burn = must be the element 'fire' within the stick being released
• drought and a plague of locusts o'er the land = god's angry

I'll admit this philisophical discussion about WHAT IS OR WHAT ISNT is WAY above my head......so I'm gonna sit back, put in a fresh COPENHAGEN dip, and watch you RIGHT-BRAIN-HEAVY-DUDES duke it out....

 

[climbingdocs]

On JFK, he was killed because he wanted to RETURN the money printing responsibility to the government, instead of private bankers like it has been since the 20's(the great depression was orchestrated by the newly created Federal Reserve, it wasn't chance). Private bankers control the Federal Reserve(private entity, nothing to do with the government, btw) and hence control all the money in the US. They can expand the money supply and suddenly cut it in half. Bankrupting everyone along the way. Repossesing their property is their goal. They wouldn't want to give that power back without a fight. JFK was on their way and he didn't last too long.

Do yourselves a favor and read on the motives to create the Federal Reserve.

makes sense, so I am guessing the private bankers back then are the same group of people as they are today?

 

[climbingdocs]

[*]sticks burn = must be the element 'fire' within the stick being released

[*]drought and a plague of locusts o'er the land = god's angry[/list]

Well with the stick, it is kinda true: energy is released from the stick, they just called it element fire (or so you say they called it that).

With gods or God, you still can't prove they were wrong. You can't disprove God with empirical evidence therefore you can't disprove God (or gods) being angry. If God is what people believe he (they) is, he can manipulate naturally occuring phenomena.

 

[climbingdocs]

I tend to agree. Also, what about Tower 7?? If that wasn't a controlled implosion, I don't know what one is.

Here's another point. Say Tower 7 was demolished professionally due to any variety of real world factors. This isn't to jump to the conclusion that therefore, the whole 911 story is a hoax. It just means that perhaps we didn't get the real deal on the reason for Tower 7's collapse (officially due to fire, but that would be a historical 1st (or 3rd given Towers 1&2) for a steel building to collapse due to any fire.

So, like I said, at least in terms of Tower 7, it doesn't mean it was "insert alternative theory here". But, it could have been something as "benign" as the city already had so much collateral damage in the area and to the building that it needed to go, and the public was just fed an incorrect explanation for any number of reasons.

OR, a very well connected and wealthy owner of the Towers could seriously have used the event as a perfect opportunity to commit insurance fraud. He'd have the cash to keep it quiet as well as to battle the insurance company(s) in court. Given that everything is relative, this explanation isn't all that different than the homeowner that sets his house ablaze on "Devil's Night" in Detroit. He's hoping to capitalize on the mayhem of the evening, in order to gain insurance reimbursement. To him, 100k is a lot. To Mr. Silverstein, he's in a whole different world, but the morality is virtually the same. So, why would this come as such a horrid shock to some people? Again, who knows, but when analyzing the circumstances of T-7, it seems that any potential explanation should be on the table.

Who knows. But, the fact that people use critical thinking to analyze (as well as to read testimony of experts in structural architecture and even the buildings' designers themselves) to begin questioning "conventional" wisdom doesn't mean anybody is suggesting it was an "inside job" or whatever. Granted if that's what you believe, by all means, present information to the rest of us.

In other words that we have very little credible information on the real cause of Tower 7's collapse and even less information on what actually hit the Pentagon is not mutually exclusive to believing in the conventional explanations for the rest of the events of 911.

I also like the argument that metal poles supporting the tower buildings got so hot that melted and thats why buildings collapsed. I heard that there was a fire fighter on the floor where there was impact, telling over the radio to the fighters on the ground that the fire can be controlled. If it was so hot to melt metal, how the hell was he still alive. Unless he was superman, in which case we have another discussion here

And, yes, what did hit Pentagon? And if it was a plane where were the bodies, why no one in Pentagon died?
Way to many questions, that government is ignoring. And I don't think they are so unreasonable.

 

[coprolalia]

Actually, I'm the reincarnation of God. It's a fact, and I can prove it. Urge, climbingdocs, and cfdavid, worship me and send me all your money.

-copro

 

[cfdavid]

Hardly a cop out. I already said I wasn't going to waste my time debating these issues with you. And when you bring up the next one - maybe it'll be a "healthy" discussion of the methods early humans used to domesticate dinosaurs - I won't dignify that absurdity with comment either.

But it's interesting that you're continuing in your pattern of drawing conclusions without evidence, and choosing to believe what you want to believe. You've apparently decided that (a) I watch TV, (b) I listen to network news, (c) I believe everything they say, and (d) I hold Wolf Blitzer in such high regard that I believe everything he says too. And none of these are true.


.

I'm not asking you to debate any of the above topics. I clearly asked you, in all your apparent wisdom, to come up with ONE single "conventional" ideology that you question. You claim to be such a huge advocate of "healthy" skepticism, yet you can't (or won't) suggest a single status quo belief of which you question.

What you fail to realize is how truly naive you sound. Your only defense thus far has been to make silly statements about how you refuse to comment, and then you proceed to make references to the dinosaurs. Can't you handle a healthy debate?

Again, just name a single piece of conventionally accepted knowledge that you disagree with, in a "healthy" fashion. But, instead you make unfounded assumptions about some of us.

 

[cfdavid]

So, the authority figure is trying to distort reality once more. I didn't imply that aliens exist because the church changed its doctrine. I meant it as an example on how an archaic institution is getting ready for the inevitable.

Thousands, if not millions, reports of UFO from different places and people with nothing to gain from it is enough evidence for me.


On JFK, he was killed because he wanted to RETURN the money printing responsibility to the government, instead of private bankers like it has been since the 20's(the great depression was orchestrated by the newly created Federal Reserve, it wasn't chance). Private bankers control the Federal Reserve(private entity, nothing to do with the government, btw) and hence control all the money in the US. They can expand the money supply and suddenly cut it in half. Bankrupting everyone along the way. Repossesing their property is their goal. They wouldn't want to give that power back without a fight. JFK was on their way and he didn't last too long.

Do yourselves a favor and read on the motives to create the Federal Reserve.

This dude has no idea about the Federal Reserve and how there's very little "Federal" about it. Perhaps this very statement will motivate him to do some research, however.

 

[pgg]

Again, just name a single piece of conventionally accepted knowledge that you disagree with, in a "healthy" fashion.

Well, I was skeptical of renal dose dopamine waaaaay before all the cool kids jumped on that bandwagon.

To more seriously answer your silly question - religion. The vast majority of people in the world believe (or say they believe) in a higher power, reincarnation, an afterlife, etc. I don't.

This dude has no idea about the Federal Reserve and how there's very little "Federal" about it. Perhaps this very statement will motivate him to do some research, however.

Exactly how have you drawn any conclusion whatsoever regarding what I know or believe about the Federal Reserve? I didn't make any comment at all regarding that subject.

Here, once again, you're choosing to believe what you want to believe without any evidence. I laugh at you for being a 9/11 Truther and fake moon landing nutter, so you assume you know what I think about other totally unrelated subjects.

 

[pgg]

Well with the stick, it is kinda true: energy is released from the stick, they just called it element fire (or so you say they called it that).

Once upon a time, nearly every educated person in the western world agreed that all matter was made up of earth, air, fire, and water.

The fact that a lot of people honestly believe something does not constitute evidence, much less proof, of that belief. The point I was trying to make was that urge's statement that

Thousands, if not millions, reports of UFO from different places and people with nothing to gain from it is enough evidence for me.

is not a rational position. He may have other reasons for believing in aliens, and they may be good ones, but "other people think so" is not in and of itself a rational reason to believe something.

Which leads us back to the crux of my argument in this thread: It is logically inconsistent to be skeptical of a simple explanation (the twin towers collapsed because planes hit them) while simultaneously not being skeptical of an extraordinary conspiracy theory (it was a controlled explosion and coverup).

 

[urge]

Once upon a time, nearly every educated person in the western world agreed that all matter was made up of earth, air, fire, and water.

The fact that a lot of people honestly believe something does not constitute evidence, much less proof, of that belief. The point I was trying to make was that urge's statement thatis not a rational position. He may have other reasons for believing in aliens, and they may be good ones, but "other people think so" is not in and of itself a rational reason to believe something.

Which leads us back to the crux of my argument in this thread: It is logically inconsistent to be skeptical of a simple explanation (the twin towers collapsed because planes hit them) while simultaneously not being skeptical of an extraordinary conspiracy theory (it was a controlled explosion and coverup).

Just humor a nutter like me for a moment and answer a few questions.
Why were there explotions in the basement?
Why did the fuel melt the steel if it couldn't reach melting temperatures?
Why did tower 7 collapse if it wasn't hit by a plane?
Why was there residue of thermoplast(I cannot remember the real name, it gets super hot and melts steel like butter)?
Why was there molten steel like lava DAYS after the crash?
Why did authorities choose not to investigate the temperature of said steel?

If you can answer these questions and still logically arrive at the conclusion that the plane crashes were enough to collapse the towers(including tower 7), please let me know so I can stop being a nutter.

 

[cfdavid]

Well, I was skeptical of renal dose dopamine waaaaay before all the cool kids jumped on that bandwagon.

To more seriously answer your silly question - religion. The vast majority of people in the world believe (or say they believe) in a higher power, reincarnation, an afterlife, etc. I don't.



Exactly how have you drawn any conclusion whatsoever regarding what I know or believe about the Federal Reserve? I didn't make any comment at all regarding that subject.

Here, once again, you're choosing to believe what you want to believe without any evidence. I laugh at you for being a 9/11 Truther and fake moon landing nutter, so you assume you know what I think about other totally unrelated subjects.

***************************************************************************************
There you go again labeling me as a 9/11 Truther and a luner landing "nutter". Where in my above posts have I indicated any extremity of views on either subject?

I clearly elaborated about how important it is to be able to question the presented facts about certain historical events, and how the very questioning of certain facts 1) may have explanations completely unrelated to the major conspiracies that abound on those events, and 2) how questioning certain presented facts is not mutually exclusive to the general acceptance of the "conventional" belief regarding the event itself.

Please re-read the above for future dialogue. I'm sick of repeating this.

I clearly stated that just because some photos may very well have been doctored up to advance a national cause, does not need to imply that we didn't go to the moon. Regarding 9/11, I also clearly stated that just because we have very little information regarding the technicality of the fall of Tower 7 does not exclude the generally accepted theme of the entire day. It simply means we have a presented explanation that doesn't seem to hold much water. And there could be a myriad of reasons why we don't have valid information. I presented a couple hypotheses just for guys like you to consider. And the point in doing that was to emphasize that those hypotheses were not exclusive to the generally accepted explanation for 9/11.

But, you prefer to allow this discussion to degenerate by labeling myself and a few others as "truthers" and "nutters". Why the name calling?

Then you offer up your truly original idea of questioning religion.

It's clear that you either don't want to, or can't, really have a debate on these issues. So, I'm bowing out of this conversation. Some of us have stuck our necks out in order to spice things up in order to encourage true dialogue and an interesting debate.

But, what you've done instead is suppress the debate with name calling and by attempting to alienate anyone with a different perspective. What fun is that? We come here to kick around any number of ideas and thoughts. But, who's going to continue to throw around ideas and alternative viewpoints that many may find interesting (if not necessarily agreeing with) when you keep up the name calling?

So, we had a coupla good counter explanations to the lunar landing deal. Then a few other points of view. All was well. Then you called a few guys "nutters". Then, an attempt was made to debate the broader issue of mis/disinformation and the questioning of conventional wisdom. One guy threw out 9/11. You proceded to label people as 9/11 "truthers". What's up with that? Why take the fun out of it?

Don't you know (see I'm asking you now, not assuming you don't know) that you're using the OLDEST trick in the book of suppressing debate?? That is the BEST way to completely suppress any debate on any given issue. To completely avoid any true debate and to label people as wacko or nut jobs and crazies for attempting to raise critical questions on certain historical norms. The absolutely oldest trick in the book.

 

[pgg]

Just humor a nutter like me for a moment and answer a few questions.

What, you can't find Google yourself? Here's a link.

Less than 15 seconds with Google: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm. Look past the .gov in the URL for a second and just read it. All of your questions are addressed in reasonable, simple terms that don't require extraordinary leaps of faith, a massive (and perfect) conspiracy.

In any case, the fact that you're posing those questions here, and not carefully searching for better documented sources, suggests that you're not really interested in the truth ... just the entertainment value of parroting a tired, long-debunked theory.

I clearly elaborated about how important it is to be able to question the presented facts about certain historical events, and how the very questioning of certain facts 1) may have explanations completely unrelated to the major conspiracies that abound on those events, and 2) how questioning certain presented facts is not mutually exclusive to the general acceptance of the "conventional" belief regarding the event itself.

All right, fair enough. I interpreted your defense of urge as agreement with his conclusions. Unwarranted.

Don't you know (see I'm asking you now, not assuming you don't know) that you're using the OLDEST trick in the book of suppressing debate?

Oooh, did someone give me moderator privileges and I didn't notice? Cool!

I'm not trying to suppress this silly debate. I'm mocking it. You're free to talk about 9/11 and our perfectly organized government's perfect coverup, or alien visits and another perfect government coverup, or anything else you like. And I'll point and laugh.

These very issues have been debated in exhaustive detail over and over and over again, for YEARS. There's no shortage of reasoned, well documented rebuttals to these conspiracy theories.

Hence my irritation and general disappointment that an anesthesiologist, a trained scientist who should be held to the highest standard of logic and evidence based practice, trots out the same garbage 9/11 arguments and "insightfully skeptical" questions that have been posed by the tinfoil brigade for close to 7 years now.

Read this if you get a chance: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html

I understand why guys like urge are so eager to embrace conspiracy theories, but that doesn't make those theories believable or even worthy of (repeated) public debate. To (repeatedly) seriously debate things like this only lends those theories credence and respectability they don't deserve, and that is both dishonest and a disservice to the truth.

That is why I take time out of my weekend to mock conspiracy theory nutjobs.