Philosophy Now Forum

Pluto wrote:Nicely arranged Ginkgo

Thank you, but I think you just blew my cover. I am actually a secret agent for NASA and the Federal government. My brief was to spread propaganda- make people think man landed on the moon.

Once was enough, but can you imagine what it was like trying to do it over and over again for the other five landings?..er, non-landings.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: They didn't. Moonhoax is old news. Your question doesnt prove anything either way though, their ability to keep a secret does not prove it to be true.

To answer your question, it's quite obvious. Mainstream is more interested in petty drug addiction type stories than important science type stories. People love nothing more than to shame and ridicule their own heroes.

SIx successful manned moonlandings and Apollo 13 that went spectacularly wrong involved thousands of people, spending billions of dollars.
This makes it a completely convincing argument
Of all the idiotic conspiracy theories this one is by far the most fucking stupid.

"This makes it a completely convincing argument"

Wasn't an argument about whether or not the moon was a hoax. Never bothered to finish my argument of why I believe it to be a hoax.

Ask the average person nowadays they won't even know what apollo13 is.

Hobbes' Choice

Six successful manned moonlandings, as well as the Apollo 13 disaster involved not "a handful" of people, but thousands of people, spending billions of dollars.
You must be very young and silly.

I said, only a handful need know. Ditto.

Ginkgo wrote:

Pluto wrote:Nicely arranged Ginkgo

Thank you, but I think you just blew my cover. I am actually a secret agent for NASA and the Federal government. My brief was to spread propaganda- make people think man landed on the moon.

Once was enough, but can you imagine what it was like trying to do it over and over again for the other five landings?..er, non-landings.

I wanted to see the foundations of belief and if they could be communicated to change mine.

Hobbes' Choice

Quote:
Six successful manned moonlandings, as well as the Apollo 13 disaster involved not "a handful" of people, but thousands of people, spending billions of dollars.
You must be very young and silly.


I said, only a handful need know. Ditto.
Last edited by Pluto on Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I said only a handful need know. You must be very old and wise.

Pluto wrote:

Hobbes' Choice

Quote:
Six successful manned moonlandings, as well as the Apollo 13 disaster involved not "a handful" of people, but thousands of people, spending billions of dollars.
You must be very young and silly.


I said, only a handful need know. Ditto.
Last edited by Pluto on Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I said only a handful need know. You must be very old and wise.

Yes, and you are an complete unimaginative idiot. I can only think that you are living in some kind of sensory restricted state. Do you go out much; hold down a job?
Thousands of people were involved in every stage of the moon landings.
Going to the moon is nothing compared to the massive network of spies and informers needed to keep a hoax of this size a secret.
Billions of people watched the rockets leave the earth; where the fuck did they go?

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: They didn't. Moonhoax is old news. Your question doesnt prove anything either way though, their ability to keep a secret does not prove it to be true.

To answer your question, it's quite obvious. Mainstream is more interested in petty drug addiction type stories than important science type stories. People love nothing more than to shame and ridicule their own heroes.

SIx successful manned moonlandings and Apollo 13 that went spectacularly wrong involved thousands of people, spending billions of dollars.
This makes it a completely convincing argument
Of all the idiotic conspiracy theories this one is by far the most fucking stupid.

"This makes it a completely convincing argument"

Wasn't an argument about whether or not the moon was a hoax. Never bothered to finish my argument of why I believe it to be a hoax.

Ask the average person nowadays they won't even know what apollo13 is.

Your ignorance and Pluto's ignorance is not evidence.

Hobbes' Choice,

Yes, and you are an complete unimaginative idiot. I can only think that you are living in some kind of sensory restricted state. Do you go out much; hold down a job?
Thousands of people were involved in every stage of the moon landings.
Going to the moon is nothing compared to the massive network of spies and informers needed to keep a hoax of this size a secret.
Billions of people watched the rockets leave the earth; where the fuck did they go?

And you call me unimaginative.

Hobbes Choice and Blaggard have both made what, I think, is the most compelling argument: at the height of the Cold War, if there was any suspicion of forgery, the Soviet Union would have made sure the entire world knew about it. The science behind putting a man on the moon is actually mundane, all you need is a bloody great rocket, which the Saturn V was, and a portable life support system, just like the A7L Apollo space suit. Rockets routinely escape the Earth's atmosphere and have done since the Germans started dropping V2s on England in the Second World War. Once you are outside the atmosphere, overcoming gravity is a cinch, get a magnet and see how easily a small piece of iron can overcome the gravity of an entire planet. It is laughably ironic that naysayers will cite things like the 'scientific evidence' of the fatal doses of radiation that would be received by humans going through the Van Allen belts, but will not accept all the evidence that Neil Armstrong et al really did walk on the Moon. Nutjobs.

Yes that is a good one, the Russians being in opposition to the US would have called out a red herring. But then we would perhaps have a shallow idea of who is the opposition to who. Those in power share more in common with each other than with their peoples. It is more like (currently) Putin and Obama (as being the ruling political class) who would be joined in common cause against the potential tryanny of their masses. The opposition may exist to a certain degree, but not as we understand it. We have to think that we have been born into already active systems of subjugation, and that the initial and continuous schooling within these domains are such that we find it almost impossible to speak and think of ideas outside its dominance.

It is too easy to speak the language of power when calling those who distrust power's actions as 'nut jobs'. Your understanding of the world is like that of a child perhaps when compared with how power sees the world. Within your borders of conceptual possibilities anything outside does simply not exist. But there is such a place, and it contains elements which would not fit with your conception of the world. So it's better to have open borders, as a thinking person.

If someone asks, did we go to the moon, the best philosophical reply is, I don't know. It appeared that we did.

Pluto wrote:It is more like (currently) Putin and Obama (as being the ruling political class) who would be joined in common cause against the potential tryanny of their masses.

I think that you would have to include the Republican party and the currently dead Boris Nemtsov in this conspiracy, not to mention every other governing party on the planet. It is conceivable that my "understanding of the world is like that of a child perhaps when compared with how power sees the world." But it is sophisticated enough to recognise that there are different political and economic interests, even within political blocs. There are plenty of examples of people in power supporting others in power to the detriment of the population they have dominion over; national interests frequently usurp human interests, but that is generally because a politicians power base is at home.

Pluto wrote:The opposition may exist to a certain degree, but not as we understand it. We have to think that we have been born into already active systems of subjugation, and that the initial and continuous schooling within these domains are such that we find it almost impossible to speak and think of ideas outside its dominance.

Well, it is true that we have to be vigilant in the face of potential oligarchy, but the one thing we do have is numbers. Revolution is always an option.

Pluto wrote:Within your borders of conceptual possibilities anything outside does simply not exist. But there is such a place, and it contains elements which would not fit with your conception of the world. So it's better to have open borders, as a thinking person.

I do hope you are not suggesting that I am an unthinking person.

Pluto wrote:If someone asks, did we go to the moon, the best philosophical reply is, I don't know. It appeared that we did.

Indeed. The evidence is compelling.

Pluto wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Pluto wrote:Nicely arranged Ginkgo

Thank you, but I think you just blew my cover. I am actually a secret agent for NASA and the Federal government. My brief was to spread propaganda- make people think man landed on the moon.

Once was enough, but can you imagine what it was like trying to do it over and over again for the other five landings?..er, non-landings.

I wanted to see the foundations of belief and if they could be communicated to change mine.

Pretty much what I said in my first post. It is possible that man didn't land on the moon. However, the empirical and mathematical evidence is up for peer review and scrutiny by professional and non-professionals people world wide. The amount of evidence for man landing in its totality dwarfs any counter factual evidence.

In this respect it is not a belief that man landed on the moon it is a fact...empirical fact that is.

Yes, an empirical fact, at best, then. Empiricism and its focus are distant bed-fellows at best.

uwot

Indeed. The evidence is compelling.

Yes, another way to say it is, the evidence is overwhelming, it overwhelms one. Look at a dictionary definition:

verb: overwhelm; 3rd person present: overwhelms; past tense: overwhelmed; past participle: overwhelmed; gerund or present participle: overwhelming

1.
bury or drown beneath a huge mass of something, especially water.
"floodwaters overwhelmed hundreds of houses"
synonyms: swamp, submerge, engulf, bury, deluge, flood, inundate; More

So to bury or submerge the thinking person in data. When confronted with a tidal wave of empiricist (the best thing we have) evidence we can only sit back and say okay it happened like that, no problem.

What is your point, Pluto? Are you suggesting that we ignore the evidence and simply think about whether the Apollo missions were fabricated?