General Conspiracy Theory Dump Store

[Stevo985]

2 hours ago, Seal said:

I would say that the only way you can be sure that what you don't know doesn't invalidate what you think you know, is if you know everything. Otherwise you can never be sure that what you don't know doesn't change what you think you know.

Yes you could say it about anything in the world.  I would say I suspect things that haven't happened personally. Not that I believe them. There is a difference. I don't think my position is an unreasonable epistemological position to take. I suspect the berlin wall came down. I have no idea what happened to hitler. Yeah I suspect the wright brother invented the aeroplane, although it is not a matter I have ever indulged myself in.

There are plenty of other reasons shy one could see the apollo landings as fake, that boot issue is just part of that. I don't think its that great to say... this is an explanation, therefore don't consider anything else. Of which that was one. I would say that in my thought process I apply something similar to occams razor (which bears more in common with a way of reasoning, than something that can be used to establish a truth objectively). 

I think that yes, that it is entirely possible.

I think it is quite insane to say that you objectively know we went to the moon on the apollo missions, when you are completely unable to prove, without an appeal to authority that it is the case.

 

 

As long as you admit that using your logic nothing that has ever happened in the world ever is provable, then I’ll agree with you. 
 

It’s absolutely mad. But each to their own

[Stevo985]

49 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

I'd argue the world is flat.

  Reveal hidden contents

Would fall off the back of the turtle otherwise. 

 

It could be flat to be fair. It’s physically impossible but it could be. Impossible to prove. 
 

I could have flown to work on a dragon this morning. You can’t prove I didn’t 

[Rds1983]

11 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

It could be flat to be fair. It’s physically impossible but it could be. Impossible to prove. 
 

I could have flown to work on a dragon this morning. You can’t prove I didn’t 

I was referencing the Discworld series. I'm not a flat earther.

[Stevo985]

6 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

I was referencing the Discworld series. I'm not a flat earther.

Oh I know. I was just trying to be funny

[Rds1983]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

Oh I know. I was just trying to be funny

Same.

I think perhaps we both failed.

[Chindie]

The Turtle Moves.

[Seal]

4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

As long as you admit that using your logic nothing that has ever happened in the world ever is provable, then I’ll agree with you. 
 

It’s absolutely mad. But each to their own

Ok. I think that is misunderstanding the logic and its purpose. The reason I avoid beliefs is because when one commits to a doctrine or an ideology, or assumes a certainty, then there becomes a risk one stops critically thinking about that thing. I think this is dangerous, at least for myself, as it leads people to commit to -isms, whereas I don't necessarily think stuck in cults, reality tunnels, is conducive to exploring the nature of this reality. 

I must admit I cannot prove that you have not flown to work on a dragon this morning. But I can suspect you didn't bearing in mind other things.

To compare this to the example we have previously discussed. In our early discussions on this, I provided context on why I am sceptical about that explanation. Namely that it would be a bit unnecessary, perhaps a waste of limited space to have two boots, rather than just design one and also nasa's long and distinguished history of telling inaccuracies, and the vast body of evidence that the apollo missions were fabricated. That is why I find the explanation insufficient to be a debunk. It is just an explanation. Unproven, but from the word of what I suspect to be a liar. I don't think it wise to take dishonest authority at their word. It is best to remain skeptical about it. Just my position. I think accepting at their word is worrying plus conducive to creating an environment where lies can be made easily.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8226075.stm I have plenty more examples of such dishonesty. This is my favourite. 

I don't think it is wise to treat the words of liars as gospel. I attach extra skepticism.

I hope that explains it - I don't quite take it to the Epicurean extent, perhaps more the Socratic extant that the only thing I know is that I know nothing. 

I think some subjects I am interested in are often best navigated by meta data. I think it is incorrect to consider anything  proven when using this. 

I appreciate that you very much disagree with this. I find your objective certainty over things odd. But I appreciate that the nature of my life has led to me perhaps being more open to disconnecting from zeitgeists than others.

[bobzy]

11 minutes ago, Seal said:

The reason I avoid beliefs is because when one commits to a doctrine or an ideology, or assumes a certainty, then there becomes a risk one stops critically thinking about that thing.

I think this is largely decent logic…

…but there’s such a vast array of evidence that the moon landings did happen; certainly far more evidence than they didn’t happen…

…so why would decide to take that “belief”? It goes beyond critical thinking and into blind ignorance, no?

[blandy]

14 minutes ago, Seal said:

the vast body of evidence that the apollo missions were fabricated...

...I attach extra skepticism.

I suspect your sceptical approach may be somewhat inconsistently applied, based on what you've written in this thread. That's fine, it's just an observation.

[NurembergVillan]

3 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Do they think children are parents property? With no rights of their own?

Yes.

Unless said child is in a sexual relationship with Russell Brand.

[Seal]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

I suspect your sceptical approach may be somewhat inconsistently applied, based on what you've written in this thread. That's fine, it's just an observation.

Nice wording. I expect if you have observed this, it might just be that sometimes things are written quickly on a forum. And translating a approach of the mind into words doesn't always happen smoothly. You would probably notice there are sentences that seem unnaturally constructed to show i try and think about it when I can.

But also taking such approach does take a mental discipline which is admittedly tough to use in practice in a universal manner. Sometimes approaches are not endgames where we are at, but things to which we work towards. 

[Seal]

3 hours ago, bobzy said:

I think this is largely decent logic…

…but there’s such a vast array of evidence that the moon landings did happen; certainly far more evidence than they didn’t happen…

…so why would decide to take that “belief”? It goes beyond critical thinking and into blind ignorance, no?

I disagree. I think there is very limited evidence outside or relying on the word of an authority. There is very little good evidence besides - yeah bro we went there. Got any evidence? Mostly just my word. I got this rock though. And you should see these photos!

I think the body of evidence whether meta or physical either fails to support the assertion. Or is suggestive that there is something very off with the narrative provided.

So I disagree that it goes beyond the critical into blind ignorance. But of course this depends on your perspective over the quality of the evidence. 

[Seal]

17 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Incidentally here is the picture that prompted this myth. It is indeed a picture of Neil Armstrong’s space suit. And it does have smooth soles

Here is some close up photos of the kind of overshoes  they wore on the moon. One of the photos is a close up of the sole. 

 

And here is a picture of Neil Armstrong on the freakin’ moon. You can see his boots clearly don’t look like the boots on the space suit above. Instead they look exactly like the overshoes which have the right tread

 

Does the second photo also see to show the shuttles shadow going one way, the astronauts shadow going a similar way albeit oddly slightly different, and the shadow of the US flag going entirely the opposite direction  . I can't even see how that would be possible if it was faked with studio lights. 

[StefanAVFC]

29 minutes ago, Seal said:

Does the second photo also see to show the shuttles shadow going one way, the astronauts shadow going a similar way albeit oddly slightly different, and the shadow of the US flag going entirely the opposite direction  . I can't even see how that would be possible if it was faked with studio lights. 

I find it amazing that they’d spend all that time and effort to fake it only to forget how light works at the key moment. 

[blandy]

43 minutes ago, Seal said:

Does the second photo also see to show the shuttles shadow going one way, the astronauts shadow going a similar way albeit oddly slightly different, and the shadow of the US flag going entirely the opposite direction

I've just been to the post office. It's mostly sunny here right now. Walking back, I took some photos of shadows cast by stuff in the way of the sun.

The first one, the shadows on the pavement next to the red car are quite slanted, but look further down the road, 30 yards and the ones opposite the tree are not as slanted - they're pointing in an apparent different direction.

Second picture same thing - my shadow is at more of an angle than the ones down the street and the last one, I stood next to the tree outside my house. Again shadows in a different direction, and I'm maybe 4 feet away from the tree

[Stevo985]

5 hours ago, Seal said:

To compare this to the example we have previously discussed. In our early discussions on this, I provided context on why I am sceptical about that explanation. Namely that it would be a bit unnecessary, perhaps a waste of limited space to have two boots, rather than just design one and also nasa's long and distinguished history of telling inaccuracies, and the vast body of evidence that the apollo missions were fabricated. That is why I find the explanation insufficient to be a debunk. It is just an explanation. Unproven, but from the word of what I suspect to be a liar. I don't think it wise to take dishonest authority at their word. It is best to remain skeptical about it. Just my position. I think accepting at their word is worrying plus conducive to creating an environment where lies can be made easily.

Quite the opposite. The overshoes needed to walk on the moon were big and bulky. They weighed a lot. Having them separate enabled Buzz and Neil to leave them on the moon to save weight and allow for the extra weight in the shape of moon rock samples that they brought back with them. Their overshoes are still on the moon now because they did just that.

NASA are only liars in your opinion because you believe conspiracy theories like this. They're not liars. 

And I don't understand how you are skeptical about that explanation. You can look up the photos that they took on the moon. Even if you think these photos are fake, you can clearly see in them that they are wearing the overshoes, and not treading on the moon with the boots you see in the space suit photo. Therefore it is absolutely provable that they did not walk on the moon, or the desert, or the film studio or whatever you believe it to be, in those smooth soled spacesuit boots. Whatever they walked on, they walked on it using the overshoes which have the correct tread for the footprints.

So even if you think it's all a conspiracy theory, even you have to acknowledge that the footprint thing is bollocks. 

Maybe there's some other evidence you have to show it's a conspiracy (spoiler: there isn't) but the footprint thing isn't it.

[Rugeley Villa]

5 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Oh I know. I was just trying to be funny

Put another photo up of you without socks again, that will do it. 

[Stevo985]

5 hours ago, Seal said:

I appreciate that you very much disagree with this. I find your objective certainty over things odd. But I appreciate that the nature of my life has led to me perhaps being more open to disconnecting from zeitgeists than others.

The nature of your life has left you more open to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

Like I said before, I have no problem with people believing the moon landings were fake. There is enough misinformation out there that is extremely convincing when you're not presented with the other side of the story that it's an easy mistake to make.

What does start to annoy me is when you, or others, are presented with the really simple evidence that debunks the conspiracy theory and refuse to believe it just because. That's not a mistake, that's deliberately believing in something that is demonstrably untrue

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Seal said:

I disagree. I think there is very limited evidence outside or relying on the word of an authority. There is very little good evidence besides - yeah bro we went there. Got any evidence? Mostly just my word. I got this rock though. And you should see these photos!

I think the body of evidence whether meta or physical either fails to support the assertion. Or is suggestive that there is something very off with the narrative provided.

So I disagree that it goes beyond the critical into blind ignorance. But of course this depends on your perspective over the quality of the evidence. 

There is, and I can't stress this enough, and absolutely ENORMOUS body of evidence to support the fact that we went to the moon. As much evidence as you would find for most major occurences in history. In fact more evidence than most major occurences in history given that most occurences happened before tv and radio and photography etc.

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Seal said:

Does the second photo also see to show the shuttles shadow going one way, the astronauts shadow going a similar way albeit oddly slightly different

Yes. It's called perspective. This explains it fairly well.

Multiple light sources would produce multiple shadows, which of course you don't see on the moon photographs.

Also the moon isn't flat, so shadows will look... weird. Like this on earth

1 hour ago, Seal said:

 the shadow of the US flag going entirely the opposite direction  

No. That's the shadow of something out of frame on the left