A dispassioned review--
Take 12 minutes to ask yourself the questions Joe Rogan confronted.
View: https://youtu.be/cMF1CXRpmoU?si=379sWbEotUstHare
Take 12 minutes to ask yourself the questions Joe Rogan confronted.
O'Darby III
Active member
My post was perhaps a bit more harsh than it could have or should have been, but I am particularly flummoxed when someone of @Mr E's obvious intelligence purports to believe in something like a fake moon landing or flat earth or when a leading and seemingly sane Christian spokesman like Jeff Schreve or Alex McFarland tries to tell me with a straight face the earth is 7,000 years old. I simply refuse to believe any sane human being could believe any of these things. I am convinced that if any of these folks were subjected to a polygraph, they would fail so spectacularly that both the operator and the machine would explode in giggles. FWIW, Joe Rogan - not one of my go-to sources for sane insights - has disavowed his previous stance on the moon landing and admitted he wasn't thinking clearly. I discussed in a blog entry on the Other Forum that I myself was once a dyed-in-the-wool JFK assassination conspiracy theorist until I realized that I, too, was caught up in nonsense and not thinking rationally or critically. I have since made almost a hobby of the psychological and sociological literature (of which there is a great deal) concerning those who are prone to wild conspiracy thinking. There is NO WAY anyone who thinks the earth is 7,000 years old, the moon landing was faked, the earth is flat or the Queen was actually a reptilian alien is thinking rationally or critically. I prefer to give most folks the benefit of the doubt and assume they are merely pretending, which I believe most are.
Bayes' Theorem, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/, is a wonderful tool for assessing the probability that a claim is true or false. It is the bane of people like flat earthers and moon landing deniers. These folks ALWAYS want to go directly to the dubious "evidence", as we see in the above YouTube video. "What about THIS, and THIS, and THIS - how do you explain THAT, huh, huh???" The members of the JFKA conspiracy community are masters at this sort of approach. On the leading JFKA forum, I once started a thread called "A Beginner's Guide to the Conspiracy Game" that I understand has become something of a classic: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/...-guide-to-the-conspiracy-game/#comment-405798. If the conspiracists can get you on their turf, playing the game according to their rules - which they do by ignoring Bayes' Theorem - you will have your hands full. Many of us have simply walked away rather than beat our heads against the brick wall of conspiracy thinking.
Bayes' Theorem is all about probabilities. What is the probability that if NASA were going to fake a moon landing, it would have done so via a project that involved years of public testing, vast numbers of private contractors, some 410,000 individuals, and so on and so forth? What is the probability that the lid could have been kept on all of this for 5, 10, 25 and now 55 years? What is the probability that all of the highly respected scientists, engineers, astronauts and officials would have played along for decades? When you start rationally and reasonably assessing the probabilities, the "fake moon landing" is exposed for what it is: nonsense if not insanity, which is why the deniers want to ignore the probabilities and focus on minutiae like "the shadows don't look right." This is how those prone to the conspiracy mindset reason, but it is not how rational and critical thinkers reason.
(Interestingly, Richard Dawkins has admitted that Bayes' Theorem is not a useful tool for assessing religious questions because there is no inherent probability that God does or doesn't exist. The entire exercise fails because all the supposed "probabilities" are entirely subjective. This is NOT true of things like the moon landing, the flat earth, the age of the earth or the JFK assassination.)
Bayes' Theorem, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/, is a wonderful tool for assessing the probability that a claim is true or false. It is the bane of people like flat earthers and moon landing deniers. These folks ALWAYS want to go directly to the dubious "evidence", as we see in the above YouTube video. "What about THIS, and THIS, and THIS - how do you explain THAT, huh, huh???" The members of the JFKA conspiracy community are masters at this sort of approach. On the leading JFKA forum, I once started a thread called "A Beginner's Guide to the Conspiracy Game" that I understand has become something of a classic: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/...-guide-to-the-conspiracy-game/#comment-405798. If the conspiracists can get you on their turf, playing the game according to their rules - which they do by ignoring Bayes' Theorem - you will have your hands full. Many of us have simply walked away rather than beat our heads against the brick wall of conspiracy thinking.
Bayes' Theorem is all about probabilities. What is the probability that if NASA were going to fake a moon landing, it would have done so via a project that involved years of public testing, vast numbers of private contractors, some 410,000 individuals, and so on and so forth? What is the probability that the lid could have been kept on all of this for 5, 10, 25 and now 55 years? What is the probability that all of the highly respected scientists, engineers, astronauts and officials would have played along for decades? When you start rationally and reasonably assessing the probabilities, the "fake moon landing" is exposed for what it is: nonsense if not insanity, which is why the deniers want to ignore the probabilities and focus on minutiae like "the shadows don't look right." This is how those prone to the conspiracy mindset reason, but it is not how rational and critical thinkers reason.
(Interestingly, Richard Dawkins has admitted that Bayes' Theorem is not a useful tool for assessing religious questions because there is no inherent probability that God does or doesn't exist. The entire exercise fails because all the supposed "probabilities" are entirely subjective. This is NOT true of things like the moon landing, the flat earth, the age of the earth or the JFK assassination.)
Please don’t disrespect ‘my obvious’ intelligence.
I’m open to examining your beliefs in detail if you are willing. You’ve adopted a religious fervor with respect to the moon- and apparently ‘the earth’ that you don’t even claim when it comes to religion. Religion you are not certain of, but the earth and the moon you are 100% convinced.
Okay— let’s examine your beliefs.
You make a claim— defend it. But know in advance that I am going to examine your beliefs as a religion. Let’s call it globalism.
Let’s call it other worldly— like from outer space. Let’s call it Clingon. Because indeed, you are clinging on to things you’ve been fed.
Have you properly considered your beliefs in this regard to the extent that you’ve considered your other religious beliefs and those things you state you are unsure of?
O'Darby III
Active member
No, I know the game. I described it quite accurately in my thread on the JFKA forum. I am too experienced to be lured down the rabbit hole. I am happy to allow those of the flat earth, young earth, faked moon landing mindset to declare themselves the winners because out here in the real world I have better things to do with my time. Sorry I peeked back in after my round of golf with the NASA engineer, but I am moving on. This entire forum is quite different from what I had anticipated or have the patience for.
Here is where Bayes’ Theorem fails. Truth is absolute - not probabilistic. Not sure how you propose going forward other than going directly to the evidence (that you slander by calling it dubious by conspiracists).
The ‘turf’ of hypothesis testing is evidence. I referenced evidence sources numerous times. All you got in response is personal attacks.
If man truly went to the moon, why are vid and pics faked?
O'Darby III
Active member
Thanks – you have provided fodder for an additional segment of my ever-evolving "Beginner's Guide to the Conspiracy Game." It is hugely comical that you posture yourself on numerous threads as a rational, logical, critical thinker. Uh, not exactly.
Here is how it works in the Conspiracy Game, and specifically your charge that I decline to deal with the "evidence" you present.
1. ACTUAL EVIDENCE: NASA announced the moon mission years in advance and conducted highly public testing. The program ultimately involved more than 400,000 employees and contractors, including the most sophisticated mathematicians, engineers and scientists then available. The cost of the first moon landing was $355 million, equivalent to more than $3 billion today. The event itself was conducted publicly on a global scale and in real time to the extent the technology permitted. This is not what a "fake" program would look like.
2. ACTUAL EVIDENCE: Despite the obvious potential for fame and financial reward, none of the employees, contractors, scientists or astronauts involved in the moon mission ever suggested it was fake. Quite the contrary. No Freedom of Information Act request has ever discovered any document supporting the fake hypothesis. No Deep Throat or whisteblower has ever revealed such a document. It is inconceivable that this level of secrecy about a fake program could have been maintained for decades – now 55 years.
3. ACTUAL EVIDENCE: The rocks and soil samples have been made available to scientists from numerous disciplines. No one has ever suggested they were anything other than what they were purported to be. The equipment used in the mission has likewise been on public display and available for inspection. No one has suggested it was anything other than what it was purported to be.
4. ACTUAL EVIDENCE: No reputable scientists believe the moon landing was faked. No reputable scientists or scholars take the fake hypothesis seriously. The only place it is discussed is in the psychological and sociological communities that study why some people are prone to believing patently absurd things.
5. ACTUAL EVIDENCE: The denier community has repeatedly been exposed for making unsubstantiated claims and even altering photographs, videos and audio interviews in support of the fake hypothesis.
These are rather compelling bodies of evidence that Conspiracy Game enthusiasts ignore because they HAVE TO ignore them. Their hypothesis can't survive dealing with them.
The relevance of Bayes' Theorem is the probability that, in light of the above evidence, the moon landing was real or fake. Bayes' Theorem compares hypotheses to each other in terms of their likelihood ratios, balanced by the priors. There is a probability value for each of the above bodies of evidence – e.g., the probability that a fake moon landing involving 400,000 employees and contractors could have been kept secret for 55 years.
Suffice it to say, the fake hypothesis does not fare well – which is why those who cling to it are of interest only to psychologists and sociologists.
This is why Conspiracy Game enthusiasts ignore all of the above and insist we focus on "the weird shadows in this photo," "the absence of stars in this photo," "the flag doesn't look right," etc., etc., etc. It's just nutcase stuff – an amusing hobby at best.
It's also why the rest of us decline to debate your "evidence." Given the above bodies of actual evidence and Bayes' Theorem, debating your "evidence" is just a waste of time.
I would hope that you and others here are knowingly playing the Conspiracy Game with tongue-cheek for some self-amusing reason that escapes me. If you are actually serious – oh, dear. I have humored you to the extent I have because the Conspiracy Game is one of my longstanding pet interests and because I believe that exposing this sort of thinking should be instructive for anyone who visits a forum such as this. If someone insists he is a genuine believer in a flat earth or fake moon landing, I could never take seriously anything else he might say. The shape and age of the earth and the reality of the moon landing are not quasi-religious "beliefs" or "claims" - they are objective facts about which wacky quasi-religious beliefs and claims to the contrary carry no weight with rational, logical, critical thinkers.
I let my best friend, a hydrologist, read this thread. I thought his response was perfect:
"I just don't have time for …
DELIBERATE STUPIDITY."
If what we see here is not deliberate stupidity, what the hell is it?DELIBERATE STUPIDITY."
I don't have time for cognitive dissonance. Nor duplicitous hypocrisy. Nor arrogance.
You've checked all three boxes.
So funny! Only your side gets to present "actual evidence." This is not Bayes theorem but it makes you feel better to rely on irrelevant facts.
Yes, I said it. While I'm not denying some of the facts you present, like NASA announced the moon mission years in advance, it really has nothing to do with pics and vids (official NASA pics and vids) that are fake,
Again, I'm not claiming we did NOT go to the moon. I am asking IF we went to the moon, why did they fake pics and vids?
For @O'Darby III because less gravity makes ladders hard.
View: https://youtube.com/shorts/yr_COent3wY?si=gsUdxBNRF2L3xwOV