View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Dec 2012, 11:22

Arouet wrote:I'm actually just as interested in the thought process as I am about the issue (actually, in this case more interested because I don't find the moon landing topic to be particularly engaging).

So the US govt lying in a big way to the entire world about its technical prowess is not of interest? And the realisation that if they're prepared to lie and create a huge hoax in this area, what else are they prepared to lie to you about, in the past, present and future? That you cannot accept 'reality' as presented by govt authority on anything? That everything 'official' is potentially layered with propaganda?

Of course that's not interesting or engaging. So what do you find interesting and engaging exactly, Arouet, that brings you to this site, and keeps you posting?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24






Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Arouet » 01 Dec 2012, 14:12

SydneyPSIder wrote:
Arouet wrote:Though I don't get the reference - at least you see other possibilities!

perhaps google it? but that's just another manifestation of sheer bloody-mindedness, I guess. Being continually cryptic, uncommunicative and disingenuous doesn't help either, unless the aim is really? to bring the site down or render it irrelevant. (Make that Walter Sobchak, must get our eastern European transliterations correct.)


I did google it but didn't understand how you thought it applied to me. In any event, you couldn't be more wrong about me wanting the forum to die. I'm a forum junkie if you haven't guessed by now. Actually, the easiest way for really and myself to help the forum die would be to simply stop posting. This forum has been on life support for awhile. PW isn't posting now, CB hasn't been for a bit.

I'm here because I like talking about these topics (I'm more into the psy debate than conspiracies, but whatever).

I was disappointed that I joined just after a bunch of proponent regs had left the site. Wish they came back. very boring conversing only with people you agree with...
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Arouet » 01 Dec 2012, 14:29

SydneyPSIder wrote:
Arouet wrote:I'm actually just as interested in the thought process as I am about the issue (actually, in this case more interested because I don't find the moon landing topic to be particularly engaging).

So the US govt lying in a big way to the entire world about its technical prowess is not of interest? And the realisation that if they're prepared to lie and create a huge hoax in this area, what else are they prepared to lie to you about, in the past, present and future? That you cannot accept 'reality' as presented by govt authority on anything? That everything 'official' is potentially layered with propaganda?

Of course that's not interesting or engaging. So what do you find interesting and engaging exactly, Arouet, that brings you to this site, and keeps you posting?


I've worked for politicians in Canada, worked in a minister's office, been behind the scenes, had a prime minister know me by name, and seen political manipulation and propaganda up close. I just grew sick of the political game, the infighting, the tactics used. I have no illusions about government.

But also knowing the people involved you see that they are, at the end of the day, just normal people. Some smart, some dim, and of varying levels of competence. I think people underestimate how difficult pulling off these elaborate conspiracy theories would be and difficult it would be to keep them quiet. That's not to say impossible, but it makes the elaborate ones much less likely.

Just look at the flack for the war in iraq. That's how governments bungle these things in real life. The perfect capers are for the movies most of the time. Some of these theories, including the moon landing, would require large numbers of people involved. That alone makes it unlikely.

But I get how they capture people's imaginations.


I'm more interested in the psy debates, alternative medicne, and the like. Conspiracy theories I find to be really primarily wading around in the muck.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Dec 2012, 15:19

They bungled 9/11 too! Lots of errors! Not to mention photographic problems with Apollo! Not to mention bungling the JFK assassination! They certainly try hard though, they managed to get RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, etc etc that decade.

The psy debates are interesting also, perhaps just stick to topics you're interested in instead of running interference in topics you have no interest in? You seemed to struggle with the compelling levels of evidence in the vaccine debate and psy debates too, I note. I guess some people are just born PSEUDOsceps through and through.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Misha » 01 Dec 2012, 16:17

Fair enough on certain levels, Arouet. However, let us look at your former Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer. Here is a gentleman by all accounts should be familiar with defense related activities of all concerns. However, here is a man that finally saw for himself which was in front of him the whole time. That being the UFO phenomena and the extraterrestrial equation. Furthermore, here is a man that defined governments as "Provisional" and "Permanent." A very big difference in knowledge base. Conspiracy or Program?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby really? » 02 Dec 2012, 11:19

Arouet wrote:Though I don't get the reference - at least you see other possibilities!

SydneyPSIder wrote:perhaps google it? but that's just another manifestation of sheer bloody-mindedness, I guess. Being continually cryptic, uncommunicative and disingenuous doesn't help either, unless the aim is really? to bring the site down or render it irrelevant. (Make that Walter Sobchak, must get our eastern European transliterations correct.)


Arouet wrote:I did google it but didn't understand how you thought it applied to me. In any event, you couldn't be more wrong about me wanting the forum to die. I'm a forum junkie if you haven't guessed by now. Actually, the easiest way for really and myself to help the forum die would be to simply stop posting. This forum has been on life support for awhile. PW isn't posting now, CB hasn't been for a bit.

I'm here because I like talking about these topics (I'm more into the psy debate than conspiracies, but whatever).

I was disappointed that I joined just after a bunch of proponent regs had left the site. Wish they came back. very boring conversing only with people you agree with...


Yes, without us this forum would look like these other forums http://users.boardnation.com/~shadowboxent/index.php
or this one.
http://www.tprconline.com/
Very little life in them.

Why are we called disingenuous when we don't agree with them ?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby really? » 02 Dec 2012, 11:26

SydneyPSIder wrote:
So what do you find interesting and engaging exactly, Arouet, that brings you to this site, and keeps you posting?

I can't speak for Arouet, but in general, skeptics try to promote critical thinking, shine the light of tempered reason on extraordinary claims and try to help others from falling down the rabbit's hole.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Misha » 02 Dec 2012, 17:15

really? wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:
So what do you find interesting and engaging exactly, Arouet, that brings you to this site, and keeps you posting?

I can't speak for Arouet, but in general, skeptics try to promote critical thinking, shine the light of tempered reason on extraordinary claims and try to help others from falling down the rabbit's hole.


I'm ok with that, Really. I think that's fair. We just have to make sure we dot our i's, cross our t's and find the truth. Yes, sometimes the rabbit hole holds the secrets, though.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby really? » 02 Dec 2012, 21:46

SydneyPSIder wrote:So what do you find interesting and engaging exactly, Arouet, that brings you to this site, and keeps you posting?

really? wrote:I can't speak for Arouet, but in general, skeptics try to promote critical thinking, shine the light of tempered reason on extraordinary claims and try to help others from falling down the rabbit's hole.


Misha wrote:I'm ok with that, Really. I think that's fair. We just have to make sure we dot our i's, cross our t's and find the truth. Yes, sometimes the rabbit hole holds the secrets, though.


That's a reasonable thing to say.
Name one example where the rabbit hole revealed any truth.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby SydneyPSIder » 02 Dec 2012, 21:48

really? wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:
So what do you find interesting and engaging exactly, Arouet, that brings you to this site, and keeps you posting?

I can't speak for Arouet, but in general, skeptics try to promote critical thinking, shine the light of tempered reason on extraordinary claims and try to help others from falling down the rabbit's hole.

Sure, that would be a sceptic, but we're worried about pseudosceptics here.

I'm a sceptic and reject many of the claims in the many of the threads here -- Mayan calendars expiring and bringing about the end of the earth, various unverifiable theories, but there are phenomena I've observed, heard about and experienced that pseudosceps regularly disparage that just shows abject ignorance and denialism. The continual denial of actual evidence by pseudosceps and especially the Randi circus is completely non-scientific and backward.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Misha » 03 Dec 2012, 01:31

really? wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:So what do you find interesting and engaging exactly, Arouet, that brings you to this site, and keeps you posting?

really? wrote:I can't speak for Arouet, but in general, skeptics try to promote critical thinking, shine the light of tempered reason on extraordinary claims and try to help others from falling down the rabbit's hole.


Misha wrote:I'm ok with that, Really. I think that's fair. We just have to make sure we dot our i's, cross our t's and find the truth. Yes, sometimes the rabbit hole holds the secrets, though.


That's a reasonable thing to say.
Name one example where the rabbit hole revealed any truth.


Alice.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Misha » 03 Dec 2012, 02:20

I decided to go down the rabbit hole this morning. Much to my surprise I found Alice rummaging through these documents.


[PDF]
Northwoods (PDF)
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Apr 30, 2001 – Memorandum for the Chief 'of Operations, Cuba Project, which responds to ... Cuba Project, subject: "Operation MONGOOSE“, dated. 5 March ...
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby really? » 03 Dec 2012, 12:24

Misha wrote:I decided to go down the rabbit hole this morning. Much to my surprise I found Alice rummaging through these documents.


[PDF]
Northwoods (PDF)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010 ... hwoods.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Apr 30, 2001 – Memorandum for the Chief 'of Operations, Cuba Project, which responds to ... Cuba Project, subject: "Operation MONGOOSE“, dated. 5 March ...


This doesn't fit because a.the conspiracy is revealed in these documents and b. this was never the type of conspiracy that ct'ers create. This rabbit hole turns out not to be a rabbit hole after all. What you have to find are documents that prove such conspiracies as the Moon hoax, President Kennedy wasn't shot by one man and 9/11 was an instead job are true and not fabrications by a small minority of people.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby SydneyPSIder » 03 Dec 2012, 13:13

northwoods is just a pimple on the backside of the FBI and the CIA, compared to what they've actually been doing.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Misha » 03 Dec 2012, 20:50

really? wrote:
Misha wrote:I decided to go down the rabbit hole this morning. Much to my surprise I found Alice rummaging through these documents.


[PDF]
Northwoods (PDF)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010 ... hwoods.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Apr 30, 2001 – Memorandum for the Chief 'of Operations, Cuba Project, which responds to ... Cuba Project, subject: "Operation MONGOOSE“, dated. 5 March ...


This doesn't fit because a.the conspiracy is revealed in these documents and b. this was never the type of conspiracy that ct'ers create. This rabbit hole turns out not to be a rabbit hole after all. What you have to find are documents that prove such conspiracies as the Moon hoax, President Kennedy wasn't shot by one man and 9/11 was an instead job are true and not fabrications by a small minority of people.


Ok, Really. I'm going to call you on this. Let's take the supposition that your truth is always in the documents. Let's also entertain what David Irving the world renowned historian has claimed that there is not ONE document whereby Hitler signed off on the Final Solution. In fact, Irving has challenged historians to find that one document whereby he would pay them one thousand dollars.

Now, I know this is beyond the purview of this thread. However, I wish to illustrate that there are cases in history where documentation will not be found when looking at conspiracies/programs. Sometimes the only admission to conspiracies/programs will come via testimonies, diaries and indisputable scientific evidence. Apollo, JFK and 9/11 violate the later to the equation. These conspiracies/programs are disputable.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest