Reply to Topic
Dark Side of the Moon is actually making fun of those who strongly believe in the Stanley Kubrick moon landing conspiracy. They literally set his own wife up to be in on the joke, and at the end they reveal the whole thing is manipulated and scripted. It's an incredibly funny satire.
Do You Believe Stanley Kubrick's "Mysterious Messages"?
Good grief these people are stubborn 
Did the God's elect lose the battle? God must have wanted them to, so... ...it must have been a punishment. Repent!
Is a woman or POC not saying what they're supposed to say relative to your preferred frame of reference? They must have internalized misogyny/racism.
Do we have evidence that it didn't happen? That just proves that the conspiracy goes deeper!
If you're in the habit of always turning evidence on its head, then there is no counter-evidence which might not be reframed as confirmatory-evidence.
The conspiracy theorist has discovered a valuable skill (reframing) and a valuable habit (questioning authority), but has converted that skill and habit into a technique governed by an overly skeptical attitude which protects a hobby horse. You can be too clever for your own good.
"The conspiracy theorist has discovered a valuable skill" - No, they've discovered a skill that will make them into a marginalized wacko who just arouses eye-rolling groans. They can hang out with the Illuminati but otherwise people avoid them like they're diseased.
X
User Lists
"The conspiracy theorist has discovered a valuable skill" - No, they've discovered a skill that will make them into a marginalized wacko who just arouses eye-rolling groans. They can hang out with the Illuminati but otherwise people avoid them like they're diseased.
The thing I will say, for example, flat Earthers is that some have done more thinking about the topic and often done more empirical testing than those of us who are wiser and take the shape of the Earth for granted. Unfortunately, flat Earthers are amateur scientists and muck up their own tests and work from sources the give posits that render their measurements moot. The most delicious moments are when they conduct a crucial experiment correctly and falsify their own position. In these moments they're becoming better scientists, even though they lack the will to cross the bridge so long as they remain in their camp.
At any rate, such thinking is a failure of our education system. Most of us cannot justify fundamental positions outside of talking points and unquestioned assumptions that actually need justification. Some of them are just working harder than us, which is humbling.
A good science/history/critical thinking education would not merely have us repeat, for example, that the world is round as an unquestioned fact, but have us secure (genuinely secure, not just tossed-off proofs) in our scientific thinking and questioning that we would not fall into the error.
There's lots of empirical ways of determining Earth's shape that involve only a rudimentary understanding of basic physics that are elementary enough to teach to a child.
But bless the flat-earthers' busy little noggins.
But bless the flat-earthers' busy little noggins.
It's great to be skeptical and think about outsider stuff, but when it becomes a block to better knowledge, that's when it strays over into dysfunction. When original thinking becomes delusion is a topic that's fascinated psychologists for a century or so. The extremes are easy to discern but the location of the border between them is a gray zone, not a hard line.
Denying the Apollo project is definitely past that gray, soft line since there are plenty of people, still alive today, who were witnesses. There's a better case to be made that the American Revolution didn't happen, since nobody who is alive or was living any time recently saw that. Generally, it becomes delusional when the proposed "alternative solution" is more complicated and unlikely than the conventional reality. The effort and mental contortion required to conclude that Apollo was faked is far harder to comprehend than actually going to the moon and it required the "thinker" to conclude that everybody involved in that huge project is also deluded or a deliberate liar. The people I knew who were actually there were neither.
Paranoia is a fascinating delusion because, in part it makes its sufferers get mired down in disassociated facts which are all held together by a basic assumption that is wrong and subsequently leads those people into defending it. They are reinforced by the occasional moments when they are right about something, often a random event.
It's a lot like the clock that's stopped but is always right twice each day.
Denying the Apollo project is definitely past that gray, soft line since there are plenty of people, still alive today, who were witnesses. There's a better case to be made that the American Revolution didn't happen, since nobody who is alive or was living any time recently saw that. Generally, it becomes delusional when the proposed "alternative solution" is more complicated and unlikely than the conventional reality. The effort and mental contortion required to conclude that Apollo was faked is far harder to comprehend than actually going to the moon and it required the "thinker" to conclude that everybody involved in that huge project is also deluded or a deliberate liar. The people I knew who were actually there were neither.
Paranoia is a fascinating delusion because, in part it makes its sufferers get mired down in disassociated facts which are all held together by a basic assumption that is wrong and subsequently leads those people into defending it. They are reinforced by the occasional moments when they are right about something, often a random event.
It's a lot like the clock that's stopped but is always right twice each day.
Last edited by skizzerflake; 03-16-21 at 10:33 AM.
X
User Lists
I enjoyed this with Louis CK (and think you will, too)
__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
...Paranoia is a fascinating delusion because, in part it makes its sufferers get mired down in disassociated facts which are all held together by a basic assumption that is wrong and subsequently leads those people into defending it. They are reinforced by the occasional moments when they are right about something, often a random event.
It's a lot like the clock that's stopped but is always right twice each day.
It's a lot like the clock that's stopped but is always right twice each day.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
It's great to be skeptical and think about outsider stuff, but when it becomes a block to better knowledge, that's when it strays over into dysfunction. When original thinking becomes delusion is a topic that's fascinated psychologists for a century or so. The extremes are easy to discern but the location of the border between them is a gray zone, not a hard line.
Denying the Apollo project is definitely past that gray, soft line since there are plenty of people, still alive today, who were witnesses. There's a better case to be made that the American Revolution didn't happen, since nobody who is alive or was living any time recently saw that. Generally, it becomes delusional when the proposed "alternative solution" is more complicated and unlikely than the conventional reality. The effort and mental contortion required to conclude that Apollo was faked is far harder to comprehend than actually going to the moon and it required the "thinker" to conclude that everybody involved in that huge project is also deluded or a deliberate liar. The people I knew who were actually there were neither.
Paranoia is a fascinating delusion because, in part it makes its sufferers get mired down in disassociated facts which are all held together by a basic assumption that is wrong and subsequently leads those people into defending it. They are reinforced by the occasional moments when they are right about something, often a random event.
It's a lot like the clock that's stopped but is always right twice each day.
Denying the Apollo project is definitely past that gray, soft line since there are plenty of people, still alive today, who were witnesses. There's a better case to be made that the American Revolution didn't happen, since nobody who is alive or was living any time recently saw that. Generally, it becomes delusional when the proposed "alternative solution" is more complicated and unlikely than the conventional reality. The effort and mental contortion required to conclude that Apollo was faked is far harder to comprehend than actually going to the moon and it required the "thinker" to conclude that everybody involved in that huge project is also deluded or a deliberate liar. The people I knew who were actually there were neither.
Paranoia is a fascinating delusion because, in part it makes its sufferers get mired down in disassociated facts which are all held together by a basic assumption that is wrong and subsequently leads those people into defending it. They are reinforced by the occasional moments when they are right about something, often a random event.
It's a lot like the clock that's stopped but is always right twice each day.
I also understand why you would find this especially annoying. I totally get why Neil Armstrong punched that guy in the face for ambush-journalism-ing him, demanding to know why he lied about the moon landing for so many decades. If you were part of one of the greatest accomplishments in human history, it would be beyond annoying to hear someone deny that accomplishment.
I think part of the trick to luring people in is to get them troubled about one key fact (e.g,. Van Allen Belt radiation, waving flags, no stars visible in the sky), one key fact which seems likely to be true which disrupts the picture of what we casually believe (e.g., if it is impossible to travel through the Van Allen belt without getting fried, then...). Just one piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit can provoke a gestalt (the whole puzzle is wrong!) shift in perspective. Once you have the person operating from the other side of the looking glass, they are actually arguing as a conservative (in the sense that they're trying to conserve their world view). That and once you prompt the Gestalt, there is now the need to save face and protect ego (e.g., arguing that we should be more forgiving of skeptics rather than just admitting that you really stepped in it), because your identity is implicated in the world view once you accomplish the Gestalt.
"What NASA could accomplish for one space mission wasn't what they could do down here on Earth cause we didn't have the infrastructure."
That stuff was invented for the space project, as were lots of technologies, but those guys would have drooled over our cell phones. Nothing in Apollo did anything more than exploit basic Newtonian physics and use a whole lot of fuel to generate thrust to make that happen. The tech was built, one project and system at a time, scaling up what started as Hitler's V2 for the lunar voyages. Some of the early scientists that worked on those projects were former nazis who had a choice to work for the US and NASA, go to the Soviet Union or end up in a war crime trial. Guess which one they chose.
That stuff was invented for the space project, as were lots of technologies, but those guys would have drooled over our cell phones. Nothing in Apollo did anything more than exploit basic Newtonian physics and use a whole lot of fuel to generate thrust to make that happen. The tech was built, one project and system at a time, scaling up what started as Hitler's V2 for the lunar voyages. Some of the early scientists that worked on those projects were former nazis who had a choice to work for the US and NASA, go to the Soviet Union or end up in a war crime trial. Guess which one they chose.
X
User Lists
Well as far as the moonlanding being faked goes, the theory is they faked the lack of gravity by shooting in slow motion. So since the camera ran at 10 frames per second, in slow motion that would mean they would about 30 frames per second at least? Let's go with that. 10 frames per second, of every minute of footage, of all the uncut 142 minutes of footage would equal 85200 frames saved onto their disc after shooting, or whatever you would call whatever they saved it on.
But if it's 30 fps at 142 minutes then the disc would have to save 255600 frames of uncut footage onto it. Was it possible for the technology to save that much footage during uncut shooting back in 69?
But if it's 30 fps at 142 minutes then the disc would have to save 255600 frames of uncut footage onto it. Was it possible for the technology to save that much footage during uncut shooting back in 69?
Well as far as the moonlanding being faked goes, the theory is they faked the lack of gravity by shooting in slow motion. So since the camera ran at 10 frames per second, in slow motion that would mean they would about 30 frames per second at least? Let's go with that. 10 frames per second, of every minute of footage, of all the uncut 142 minutes of footage would equal 85200 frames saved onto their disc after shooting, or whatever you would call whatever they saved it on.
But if it's 30 fps at 142 minutes then the disc would have to save 255600 frames of uncut footage onto it. Was it possible for the technology to save that much footage during uncut shooting back in 69?
But if it's 30 fps at 142 minutes then the disc would have to save 255600 frames of uncut footage onto it. Was it possible for the technology to save that much footage during uncut shooting back in 69?
Whichever disk they would have recorded the footage onto, or how would they have recorded the footage?
If we're talking about a TV broadcast, then it would seem that magnetic tape is the answer.
Can you store 142 minutes of images on the old TV standard (interlaced) on magnetic tape? Sure, no problem, right?
Oh okay. In this video, the person talks about how not even 47 minutes of slow motion footage can be stored onto an Ampex HS-100 magnetic disk recorder. He says this at 5:51 into the video:
But if magnetic tape can hold 142 minutes of images, then why didn't me mention that? Why did he only mention an Ampex HS-100 disk recorder that can't even hold 47 minutes?
But if magnetic tape can hold 142 minutes of images, then why didn't me mention that? Why did he only mention an Ampex HS-100 disk recorder that can't even hold 47 minutes?
I think part of the trick to luring people in is to get them troubled about one key fact (e.g,. Van Allen Belt radiation, waving flags, no stars visible in the sky), one key fact which seems likely to be true which disrupts the picture of what we casually believe (e.g., if it is impossible to travel through the Van Allen belt without getting fried, then...).
Exactly! I have my doubts, and I'm always told that there is evidence that has nothing to do with my doubts.
The Van Allen belt is one I don't understand, so it's not a biggie for me, but for others, it is.
What I find most amusing is that people take this kind of stuff so personally.