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 really? » 03 Dec 2012, 22:39

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 ...


really wrote: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.


Misha wrote: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.


You are right it is beyond the purview of this thread. What I have in mind are the totally weird ct's that have no facts to back them up, sound implausible because of the scope required of thousands of people to keep their mouths shut, appear out of thin air, are created by a small minority of people that for many reasons don't like the mainstream reports. So there's really nothing to debate here with your example above. What is debatable is your statement that facts can be dredged up by going down the rabbits hole. I've yet to see or hear of that happening. On the flipside, if you are looking for Alice or the White Rabbit then you will always have success. If that is ones goal success is abundant.

P.S. A perfect example of finding the white rabbit is SydneyPSIder's first post to this thread. It's the first reply.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58






Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby SydneyPSIder » 04 Dec 2012, 00:00

really? wrote:
You are right it is beyond the purview of this thread. What I have in mind are the totally weird ct's that have no facts to back them up, sound implausible because of the scope required of thousands of people to keep their mouths shut, appear out of thin air, are created by a small minority of people that for many reasons don't like the mainstream reports. So there's really nothing to debate here with your example above. What is debatable is your statement that facts can be dredged up by going down the rabbits hole. I've yet to see or hear of that happening. On the flipside, if you are looking for Alice or the White Rabbit then you will always have success. If that is ones goal success is abundant.

P.S. A perfect example of finding the white rabbit is SydneyPSIder's first post to this thread. It's the first reply.

Another ridiculous, empty post from really?? What a surprise. Although its lack of substance perfectly captures the pseudoscep mindset and it's a good example of the syndrome.

Over two dozen points of clear evidence just off the top of my head, and really? doesn't see anything. Very interesting.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Misha » 04 Dec 2012, 04:38

Really wrote:

"You are right it is beyond the purview of this thread. What I have in mind are the totally weird ct's that have no facts to back them up, sound implausible because of the scope required of thousands of people to keep their mouths shut, appear out of thin air, are created by a small minority of people that for many reasons don't like the mainstream reports. So there's really nothing to debate here with your example above. What is debatable is your statement that facts can be dredged up by going down the rabbits hole. I've yet to see or hear of that happening. On the flipside, if you are looking for Alice or the White Rabbit then you will always have success. If that is ones goal success is abundant."


Really, you're still missing the barn on this. One, let's take the analogy of UFOs compared to all the conspiracies out there. I am only interested in the small viable percentages of UFOs/conspiracies which cannot be explained and have meat behind them. You're bathwatering all conspiracies under one umbrella. Two, the scope in which you say conspiracies/programs cannot be kept secret does not speak of the cellular nature and the consumption factor. I have to agree with SydneyPSIder that your post is empty. I just provided you with a clear example with what David Irving has put forth. Yet, you ducked it.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby really? » 04 Dec 2012, 11:14

Misha wrote:Really wrote:

"You are right it is beyond the purview of this thread. What I have in mind are the totally weird ct's that have no facts to back them up, sound implausible because of the scope required of thousands of people to keep their mouths shut, appear out of thin air, are created by a small minority of people that for many reasons don't like the mainstream reports. So there's really nothing to debate here with your example above. What is debatable is your statement that facts can be dredged up by going down the rabbits hole. I've yet to see or hear of that happening. On the flipside, if you are looking for Alice or the White Rabbit then you will always have success. If that is ones goal success is abundant."


Really, you're still missing the barn on this. One, let's take the analogy of UFOs compared to all the conspiracies out there. I am only interested in the small viable percentages of UFOs/conspiracies which cannot be explained and have meat behind them. You're bathwatering all conspiracies under one umbrella. Two, the scope in which you say conspiracies/programs cannot be kept secret does not speak of the cellular nature and the consumption factor. I have to agree with SydneyPSIder that your post is empty. I just provided you with a clear example with what David Irving has put forth. Yet, you ducked it.


First, I am not putting all ct's in one group, just a specific two. Second, I have nothing to say for or against ufo ct's.
Third, I did not duck David Irving because I can't comment on something I don't know a thing about. Fourth, I have provided a few articles specifically discussing the psychology, and motives behind ct'er's. If you both have a problem with what I've said ( which is the case) then you have a problem with people that study and explain the mind of a ct'er. In this specific case if you don't feel these articles describe ct'ers and possibly you and you then you must explain why it does not describe you and you. If not, it's just typical rhetoric.

When skeptical people don't agree we are labeled pseudosceptics. When we don't agree we are labeled disingenuous. When we don't agree our postings are vacuous. When we don't agree we skeptics are label wrong. for the most part that's just rhetoric,

P.S. Now if you have the courage go tell them their work is empty.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Misha » 04 Dec 2012, 12:06

really? wrote:
Misha wrote:Really wrote:

"You are right it is beyond the purview of this thread. What I have in mind are the totally weird ct's that have no facts to back them up, sound implausible because of the scope required of thousands of people to keep their mouths shut, appear out of thin air, are created by a small minority of people that for many reasons don't like the mainstream reports. So there's really nothing to debate here with your example above. What is debatable is your statement that facts can be dredged up by going down the rabbits hole. I've yet to see or hear of that happening. On the flipside, if you are looking for Alice or the White Rabbit then you will always have success. If that is ones goal success is abundant."


Really, you're still missing the barn on this. One, let's take the analogy of UFOs compared to all the conspiracies out there. I am only interested in the small viable percentages of UFOs/conspiracies which cannot be explained and have meat behind them. You're bathwatering all conspiracies under one umbrella. Two, the scope in which you say conspiracies/programs cannot be kept secret does not speak of the cellular nature and the consumption factor. I have to agree with SydneyPSIder that your post is empty. I just provided you with a clear example with what David Irving has put forth. Yet, you ducked it.


First, I am not putting all ct's in one group, just a specific two. Second, I have nothing to say for or against ufo ct's.
Third, I did not duck David Irving because I can't comment on something I don't know a thing about. Fourth, I have provided a few articles specifically discussing the psychology, and motives behind ct'er's. If you both have a problem with what I've said ( which is the case) then you have a problem with people that study and explain the mind of a ct'er. In this specific case if you don't feel these articles describe ct'ers and possibly you and you then you must explain why it does not describe you and you. If not, it's just typical rhetoric.

When skeptical people don't agree we are labeled pseudosceptics. When we don't agree we are labeled disingenuous. When we don't agree our postings are vacuous. When we don't agree we skeptics are label wrong. for the most part that's just rhetoric,

P.S. Now if you have the courage go tell them their work is empty.


First off, thank you for the article, Really. It affirms in my mind and the years of research that the Launius' Smithsonian article is riddled in presuppositions, memes, strawman arguments, and psychobabble. Where does one begin to take this apart? I'm all for a good argument, but sometimes you have to pull up stakes and let them learn the hard way. Do me a favor and look into Irving's arguments. It is instructive in that he shows how information is disseminated and constructed. This is where your focus should be.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby ProfWag » 05 Dec 2012, 04:04

Misha wrote: 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.

I must come out of hiding and state my personal opinion on this which is that anyone who denies the Holocaust and supports Hitler is a son of a bitch.
Thank you for your time.
Back underground I go...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Misha » 05 Dec 2012, 05:03

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote: 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.

I must come out of hiding and state my personal opinion on this which is that anyone who denies the Holocaust and supports Hitler is a son of a bitch.
Thank you for your time.
Back underground I go...


Whoa, ProfWag! I hope you are not addressing me? You cut and pasted my quote and it's leading in the extreme. I was very specific about documentation concerning Hitler. This had nothing to do with whether one believes in the Holocaust or not. Be very careful about projecting who you are calling a "son-of-bitch."
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby SydneyPSIder » 05 Dec 2012, 08:03

really? wrote:First, I am not putting all ct's in one group, just a specific two. Second, I have nothing to say for or against ufo ct's.
Third, I did not duck David Irving because I can't comment on something I don't know a thing about. Fourth, I have provided a few articles specifically discussing the psychology, and motives behind ct'er's. If you both have a problem with what I've said ( which is the case) then you have a problem with people that study and explain the mind of a ct'er. In this specific case if you don't feel these articles describe ct'ers and possibly you and you then you must explain why it does not describe you and you. If not, it's just typical rhetoric.

When skeptical people don't agree we are labeled pseudosceptics. When we don't agree we are labeled disingenuous. When we don't agree our postings are vacuous. When we don't agree we skeptics are label wrong. for the most part that's just rhetoric,

P.S. Now if you have the courage go tell them their work is empty.


I agree that there are certain people who are innately pretty suspicious and paranoid who see CTs everywhere, and always go that one step further. I observed somebody in that mold just last Friday in a public forum, who suggested that the Indonesian military at a high level are controlling the flow of boat people to Australia in order to embarrass govts they don't like -- when it's a govt they like they stop the flow, when it's a govt they don't like, they ramp it up. Almost beggars belief, and the more likely explanation is that each boatload is worth $2M to the organisers, and elements in the military are highly corrupt. For what it's worth, I pretty much don't have a CTist bone in my body -- some years ago my gay travel agent started telling me about anomalies with the Pentagon attack, and I scoffed and simply didn't accept the story -- until digging deeper much later with all the considerable and convincing material on the facts on the net. I remember spending an entire night going over and over it. Similarly for the evidence for Apollo (I made space shuttle and Apollo LEM models as a kid) and other areas such as JFK, MLK, RFK, Lady Di, etc. I'm definitely seeing an invisible hand, but it's based on the evidence and anomalies, not paranoia, suspicion and wild conjecture. Hence the really crazy holistic stuff referenced by the prof in the OP about illuminati and bilderbergers etc and the wilder claims of Jim Marr or David Icke have to be subject to close scrutiny, least of all shape-shifting reptiles of course. The wilder theorists tend to have less evidence for the wilder claims and are stringing suspicion to suspicion, and I suspect they have a strong paranoid streak in their make-up, and their fact-checking is a bit broken. They do the genuine investigations no favours. I find wacky characters like David Icke particularly nauseating and beyond the pale -- and of course people like that are sitting ducks for sceps adn pseudosceps alike to tear apart and mock -- and it brings down any sensible discussion of the facts. Nonetheless, having said that, it sometimes takes a few suspicions and paranoid leaps to join up the dots and conjecture what really happened -- e.g. who really shot the cop in the street in the LHO case? It wasn't LHO, and people believe it was one of the assassins in the car when a cop got too close. Theory-forming (that fits the evidence) is actually a very important part of the scientific theorising process -- without imagination and the ability to conjecture in line with the evidence, very few scientific discoveries would have been made by man.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Arouet » 05 Dec 2012, 08:14

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote: 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.

I must come out of hiding and state my personal opinion on this which is that anyone who denies the Holocaust and supports Hitler is a son of a bitch.
Thank you for your time.
Back underground I go...


Awwww, c'mon PW! Come back!!!!!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby really? » 05 Dec 2012, 11:16

I second the plea for PW to come back.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Misha » 05 Dec 2012, 11:39

Arouet wrote:
ProfWag wrote:]Misha wrote: 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.

I must come out of hiding and state my personal opinion on this which is that anyone who denies the Holocaust and supports Hitler is a son of a bitch.
Thank you for your time.
Back underground I go...


Awwww, c'mon PW! Come back!!!!!


Yes, ProfWag. I for one would like you to come back just long enough to tell us who your quote was directed at. This is not sitting well with me one iota.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby ProfWag » 05 Dec 2012, 18:36

Misha wrote:Yes, ProfWag. I for one would like you to come back just long enough to tell us who your quote was directed at. This is not sitting well with me one iota.

Misha, my quote is directed at all people who deny the Holocaust. If you want to use someone like David Irving as a reference and refer to him as "world renown," then that's your business, but the reader should be informed about who the source is before making a decision if your point is valid. I stand by my personal belief that people who deny the Holocaust are son of a bitches. I'm not saying you, personally, believe that or not as I don't know. I do know that the person you refered to as a "world renown historian" denies the Holocaust ever happened. My thinking is that anyone who denies that 6 million people were murdered in death camps should not be referred to as a "world renown historian." Again, that's my personal opinion. I apologize if there was further information that you presented that I overlooked.

Thank you all for asking about me. I've been doing some other things and traveling without internet access lately, but am now back home. Unfortunately, I'm going under the knife in about 3 hours which might prevent me from typing coherently for a while. I'll be back, it'll just be a while longer.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Misha » 05 Dec 2012, 21:18

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote:Yes, ProfWag. I for one would like you to come back just long enough to tell us who your quote was directed at. This is not sitting well with me one iota.

Misha, my quote is directed at all people who deny the Holocaust. If you want to use someone like David Irving as a reference and refer to him as "world renown," then that's your business, but the reader should be informed about who the source is before making a decision if your point is valid. I stand by my personal belief that people who deny the Holocaust are son of a bitches. I'm not saying you, personally, believe that or not as I don't know. I do know that the person you refered to as a "world renown historian" denies the Holocaust ever happened. My thinking is that anyone who denies that 6 million people were murdered in death camps should not be referred to as a "world renown historian." Again, that's my personal opinion. I apologize if there was further information that you presented that I overlooked.

Thank you all for asking about me. I've been doing some other things and traveling without internet access lately, but am now back home. Unfortunately, I'm going under the knife in about 3 hours which might prevent me from typing coherently for a while. I'll be back, it'll just be a while longer.


ProfWag, when you take someone's quote and juxtaposed it with a derogatory comment how is one to take it? I appreciate you clearing that up. And, you're right. I can personally say in the metaphorical sense that I am a son-of-bitch when it comes to truth. That means Irving or no Irving....

I hope your surgery goes well.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Arouet » 06 Dec 2012, 03:04

Ouch, GL PW! Welcome back!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Denying the Apollo Moon Landings:...

Postby Arouet » 06 Dec 2012, 03:06

Misha wrote:ProfWag, when you take someone's quote and juxtaposed it with a derogatory comment how is one to take it? I appreciate you clearing that up. And, you're right. I can personally say in the metaphorical sense that I am a son-of-bitch when it comes to truth. That means Irving or no Irving....

I hope your surgery goes well.


I'm not sure if there is some subtext here. Do you believe the Holocaust happened?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron