Author Topic: We never landed on the Moon (Read 16824 times)

ggreg · « **Reply #45 on:** April 24, 2013, 11:59:34 PM »

Without discussing any conspiracy. I would just like to make the following observation about cost savings in the demolition industry.

Building seven was not hit by a jet and had random fires and surface damage from falling rubble and yet came down in its own footprint as perfectly and neatly as any controlled explosion, which take months of preparation by skilled technicians and demolition engineers. If you were watching 'America's got demolition talent" you would give that collapse 10 out of 10. If you disagree, please go watch the video of the collapse on YOUTUBE from every angle. Then compare it to videos of controlled demolitions in Vegas.

Why would demolition experts, the world over, not now be looking at simply starting nice hot diesel fires evenly and uniformly around the columns of any steel framed building. Truck load of chopped wood, few drums of kerosene for the entire building and a cigarette lighter. You're good to go.

They could undercut their competitor's bids, save the dangerous handling and storage of explosives and months of preparation work.

If random fires not evenly spread through the building can bring a 50 story skyscraper down that evenly, then, logically, one would expect controlled, designed, pre-calculated and evenly distributed fires to do it with a 99.9 percent success rate. You could have any building down in 24 hours.

Al Gore could probably even develop a carbon neutral and smokeless fuel and force its use by law on building owners and demolition companies. They would still be saving months and millions in explosives and manpower to prepare the building.

Everyone's a winner. So why, 12 years on, are they still blowing them up?

ggreg · « **Reply #46 on:** April 25, 2013, 12:00:44 AM »

For the record I too dislike conspiracy nuts and I believe men went to the moon.

ggreg · « **Reply #47 on:** April 25, 2013, 12:11:08 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: ggreg
There has always been centralised control of one type or another.
yes, but you can't use that to say the degree of centralized control has not increased dramatically. Even if I grant you that nothing has really changed, the perception is not the same.

Compared to the last 50 years, yes I agree, control has become more centralised.

Compared to the zenith of the British Empire? I am not so sure. China, Russia, Arabia and North Korea and others don't appear to be playing the game of the central controllers or dancing to their tune.

Compared to mainland Europe at the height of the Roman Empire?

Alexander the Great? Mongol Horde?

ggreg · « **Reply #48 on:** April 25, 2013, 12:19:49 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: ggreg
I'm not arguing for or against the Moon landings here. I am arguing that both sides should be highly concerned that we cannot be humanly certain that they took place. Seems like a path to madness. Trust is a cornerstone of society. Without it almost nothing can function.

That trust has been destroyed. Centralized control also eliminates any idea that there is even a semblance of a "check" on what the "state and federal authorities" are telling us. Obviously, this creates havoc, which may be what is indended.

Or the havoc may also be an indication that they are not in control. Creating Havoc seems an awfully risky strategy for the people in power. Did not work well for Louis XVI or Nicholas II if indeed they created it.

Not much havoc in Communist China. They are missing a trick?

Vandaler · « **Reply #49 on:** April 25, 2013, 05:37:47 AM »

Perhaps it becomes clearer when the slope is dramatically steep. In this case a 90 degree slope. The shadow obviouly bends to conform with the slope change at the apex of the wall and sidewalk.

SJB · « **Reply #50 on:** April 25, 2013, 06:24:18 AM »

Quote from: ggreg

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: ggreg
I'm not arguing for or against the Moon landings here. I am arguing that both sides should be highly concerned that we cannot be humanly certain that they took place. Seems like a path to madness. Trust is a cornerstone of society. Without it almost nothing can function.

That trust has been destroyed. Centralized control also eliminates any idea that there is even a semblance of a "check" on what the "state and federal authorities" are telling us. Obviously, this creates havoc, which may be what is indended.

Or the havoc may also be an indication that they are not in control. Creating Havoc seems an awfully risky strategy for the people in power. Did not work well for Louis XVI or Nicholas II if indeed they created it.

Not much havoc in Communist China. They are missing a trick?

Exactly ggreg, it is only useful and desirable to gain control. You made my point.

SJB · « **Reply #51 on:** April 25, 2013, 06:34:07 AM »

Quote from: ggreg

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: ggreg
There has always been centralised control of one type or another.
yes, but you can't use that to say the degree of centralized control has not increased dramatically. Even if I grant you that nothing has really changed, the perception is not the same.

Compared to the last 50 years, yes I agree, control has become more centralised.

Compared to the zenith of the British Empire? I am not so sure. China, Russia, Arabia and North Korea and others don't appear to be playing the game of the central controllers or dancing to their tune.

Compared to mainland Europe at the height of the Roman Empire?

Alexander the Great? Mongol Horde?

And most of us weren't around at the height of the Roman Empire.

Vandaler · « **Reply #52 on:** April 25, 2013, 06:47:01 AM »

The entire shadow business was reproduced by the Mythbusters with delicious precision.

http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=18897

Vandaler · « **Reply #53 on:** April 25, 2013, 07:01:59 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

(Repost from a few years ago -- that thread got totally derailed)

Just wanted to let you know.

I watched some videos of the evidence, and it was convincing -- even compelling.

...

A friend of mine (a member of CathInfo) responded thus:

"[Those who deny the moon landing] are usually (but not always) the same folks that contend that the earth is flat and that everything in the universe revolves around it."

So, let's apply that argument to the Crisis in the Catholic Church:

Vatican II was bad and/or the work of Freemasons to destroy the Church? I don't believe it. Why? Because some who believe that end up becoming sedevacantist, or even electing their own pope! So I must reject that Vatican II was bad and/or the work of Freemasons.

You could have just said that ad hominem arguments are fallacious and does not bring any closer to the truth.

I see very clearly what your doing... using some of your opponents weakest arguments (and of course discard the strongest) to bolster your own case and reboot the subject.

Your not committing a fallacy - it's more of a debating strategy - but it's kinda underhanded.

ggreg · « **Reply #54 on:** April 25, 2013, 07:09:53 AM »

For your interest. Media reporting that bomber was a conspiracy theorist as well.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/24/he-just-took-tamerlans-brain-boston-bombing-suspect-radicalized-by-mysterious-muslim-convert-family-says/

Hatchc · « **Reply #55 on:** April 25, 2013, 09:21:46 AM »

Quote from: ggreg

For your interest. Media reporting that bomber was a conspiracy theorist as well.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/24/he-just-took-tamerlans-brain-boston-bombing-suspect-radicalized-by-mysterious-muslim-convert-family-says/

Everyone's a conspiracy theorist.

SJB · « **Reply #56 on:** April 25, 2013, 09:57:36 AM »

Quote from: Vandaler

The entire shadow business was reproduced by the Mythbusters with delicious precision.

http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=18897

So now you abandon those pictures of trees and refer me to "Myth Busters?"

JohnGrey · « **Reply #57 on:** April 25, 2013, 11:23:33 AM »

Quote from: Hatchc

Quote from: ggreg
For your interest. Media reporting that bomber was a conspiracy theorist as well.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/24/he-just-took-tamerlans-brain-boston-bombing-suspect-radicalized-by-mysterious-muslim-convert-family-says/

Everyone's a conspiracy theorist.

The tendency to leap to conspiracy is a byproduct of the human predisposition to behavioral pareidolia, which is in turn born of a particular hubris of man in believing that he's always rational, most especially when he's doing something monumentally stupid. The inclination towards assigning conspiracy to the motivation behind large events is that it salves us from the uncertainties of life that follow being neither omniscient nor immortal. Man is generally unable to tolerate the inscrutability of major events that have no apparent rational cause so, in the absence of fact, he, at best, conjectures, and, at worst, blatantly fantasizes.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #58 on:** April 25, 2013, 11:34:03 AM »

Being a "conspiracy theorist" really just means being unmoored from the collective narrative of society.

Now some of these people really will seem credulous, and some undoubtedly are, but really they are generally no more credulous than the common people who conform to conventional narrative of events and get angry at those who don't.

While it's true the conventional narrative of events is more likely to be reliable than someone who follows all sorts of exotic explanations for events, that is not because the conventional narrative is necessarily more truthful. Rather it is because the conventional narrative has a huge media/academia complex supporting it. A lone individual, working on his own mental resources, is liable to get many things wrong that the conventional narrative gets right. However, he is also more likely to recognize the fundamental untruths of the conventional narrative.

Of course the desire to conflate "conspiracy theory" with UFOs is by design. It is a way to discredit the conspiratorial view of history.

Someone interested in the Freemasons, for example, is probably a thousand times more likely to read about in in Dan Brown than in Leon de Poncins. The conspiracy is thoroughly engaged in well poisoning.

Before the internet it wasn't easy to find information about the conspiratorial view of history in your typical library.

Since the internet, they've decided to flood us with nonsense about the topic.

And yes, people with alternative views are often prone to making errors that are easy to ridicule. Someone with conventional views might believe something ridiculous, but because other people believe it, it is no longer considered ridiculous. However, it's likely that people who challenge conventional views will make errors, even serious errors, are make him an object of derision. That does not in any way diminish those facts presented which are TRUE.

And the TRUE facts are there, hiding in plain site.

SJB · « **Reply #59 on:** April 25, 2013, 11:41:19 AM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Quote from: Hatchc
Quote from: ggreg
For your interest. Media reporting that bomber was a conspiracy theorist as well.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/24/he-just-took-tamerlans-brain-boston-bombing-suspect-radicalized-by-mysterious-muslim-convert-family-says/

Everyone's a conspiracy theorist.

The tendency to leap to conspiracy is a byproduct of the human predisposition to behavioral pareidolia, which is in turn born of a particular hubris of man in believing that he's always rational, most especially when he's doing something monumentally stupid. The inclination towards assigning conspiracy to the motivation behind large events is that it salves us from the uncertainties of life that follow being neither omniscient nor immortal. Man is generally unable to tolerate the inscrutability of major events that have no apparent rational cause so, in the absence of fact, he, at best, conjectures, and, at worst, blatantly fantasizes.

As long as we don't confuse real questions with "conspiracy." I've seen too many seemingly rational people dismiss crazy things presented to them simply because questioning these things is too uncomfortable for them, especially if they know they'll be attacked for merely questioning.