Moon landing - Did it happen?

[Guest Kanenite]

To be honest i've never really doubted whether it was true or not. I've just always assumed it's true because of facts etc, but thinking about it it could've been all a load of rubbish. However I believe it's true, i'd be gobsmacked if they said tomorrow that it was all done in a studio though.

[Guest A.C.]

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist and if I'm being honest I'm not overly bothered if American's landed on the Moon or not, HOWEVER over the years there have been alot of questions, doubts and so on that have cropped up disputing the validity of the moon landing.

 

Beit that they cheated because they wanted to get there before the Russians or whatever else. Here is another interesting piece of footage:

 

http://www.filecabi.net/video/Neil_Armstron_Window.html

 

I kinda like this sort of thing, makes you think. What do you reckon? Have there ever been humans on the Moon? I believe there have been a total of 12 people that have walked on the Moon between 1969 - 1972 or 73, have they all walked on the Moon? Have half of them? Have any of them?

 

That video is poor stuff. Some of the non sequiturs are astounding. They've got some never seen before footage and seem to have wrapped a very odd story of mirrors and blinds around it.

 

The statement that Armstrong "implicates himself" by "falsely" claiming to be 130,000 miles out when he's in low orbit is a nonsense when it's presented without any evidence. What they do present as evidence are half-baked ideas without any real back up.

 

Armstrong is heard to say that the window is "filled up with a TV camera" and the narrator immediately states that Armstrong said that the window was "completely filled with a TV camera," - see the difference? This non-quote is then used to damn the astronauts by being used to infer that if the window was completely filled up (and Armstrong did not say it was) that an astronaut's arm couldn't have got between the lens and the window.

 

The 10 minute clip is pretty indicative of the whole of the CT community - intellectual dishonesty leaking from every pore. If they spent even ten percent of the effort they put into plugging the gaps in their "theories" on actually looking at the verifiable evidence with an open mind then they'd realise the falseness of what they're trying to support.

[Guest Fiona]

This question goes on and on, like Do Ghosts Exist?

 

I mean look at this video, it show potential evidence, but do people believe it:

 

 

Thanks scared the hell out of me wasn't expecting it. All I know about ghosts is my aunt used to live in a haunted flat in Glasgow. Things would change places on their own. My mom told me that after she moved in we went to visit her I walked in the door burst into tears and ran out. Apparently nothing could get me to go back inside. I don't remember it but my mom and my aunt swear that it happened.

[Guest A.C.]

Thanks scared the hell out of me wasn't expecting it. All I know about ghosts is my aunt used to live in a haunted flat in Glasgow. Things would change places on their own. My mom told me that after she moved in we went to visit her I walked in the door burst into tears and ran out. Apparently nothing could get me to go back inside. I don't remember it but my mom and my aunt swear that it happened.

 

Anecdote =/= evidence.

[Guest Fiona]

Anecdote =/= evidence.

 

Are you being rude?

[Guest A.C.]

Are you being rude?

 

I hope not. It remains that anecdotes aren't the same thing as evidence. We have lots and lots of anecdotes "confirming" the existence of all sorts of paranormal things - ghosts, aliens, gods, ESP and so on - but no evidence.

[Guest Al Stevens]

Because at times when there is something which could be considered to a form of evidence it gets shot down. Due to the nature of humans if there was a ghost or an alien on TV talking and interacting with a human they would just claim it was CGI because they wasn't there

[Guest A.C.]

Because at times when there is something which could be considered to a form of evidence it gets shot down. Due to the nature of humans if there was a ghost or an alien on TV talking and interacting with a human they would just claim it was CGI because they wasn't there

 

Which would you think is more likely? Based upon what we know to be true it should be more likely that humans will claim it's CGI or some other trickery. Unfortunately, there are still thousands upon thousands who believe otherwise.

 

[edited to add] A piece of video footage - exactly because of the chances of trickery - is unlikely ever to be good evidence.

[Guest Fiona]

I hope not. It remains that anecdotes aren't the same thing as evidence. We have lots and lots of anecdotes "confirming" the existence of all sorts of paranormal things - ghosts, aliens, gods, ESP and so on - but no evidence.

 

I have no evidence that there was a ghost in her flat but according to my aunt a lot of people only visited her once. Maybe it was her cooking.

[Guest Al Stevens]

Unless something happened major (for example an Alien landing/invasion) where the whole world was effected then everyone would say it was some form of trickery. Thats the problem personal experiences are just that Personal, we're then other people call them anecdotes.

 

Myself i have been to places which was reported to be haunted and have felt some sort of present or whatever it's called. It freaked me out but i know there will be people on here who are reading this thinking 'Yeah whatever Al'

[Guest A.C.]

Unless something happened major (for example an Alien landing/invasion) where the whole world was effected then everyone would say it was some form of trickery. Thats the problem personal experiences are just that Personal, we're then other people call them anecdotes.

 

Myself i have been to places which was reported to be haunted and have felt some sort of present or whatever it's called. It freaked me out but i know there will be people on here who are reading this thinking 'Yeah whatever Al'

 

Actually, I'm thinking 'Confirmation Bias' and 'Suggestibility' but I get your drift.

[DC 536]

Which would you think is more likely? Based upon what we know to be true it should be more likely that humans will claim it's CGI or some other trickery. Unfortunately, there are still thousands upon thousands who believe otherwise.

Why is it unfortunate?

 

I believe what I saw was not of Earth-origin. Is that an unfortunate situation?

[Guest A.C.]

Why is it unfortunate?

 

I believe what I saw was not of Earth-origin. Is that an unfortunate situation?

 

The default position (as with most things paranormal) ought to be non-belief. Simply ascribing a paranormal explanation to something just because it's outside of your current ability to understand it makes little sense. In what might be seen by some as an attempt to understand something you're simply adding an extra layer of complexity that doesn't need to be there.

 

It seems apt to say that Thor was to Thunder what Aliens are to UFOs.

[Guest Al Stevens]

So basically your saying that people who have felt something or experienced something which could be paranormal are people who are outside the current ability of normal "Skeptical" thinking.

 

Even Skeptic's need something to believe in

[Omega 354]

Occams razor suggsts different...

[Guest A.C.]

So basically your saying that people who have felt something or experienced something which could be paranormal are people who are outside the current ability of normal "Skeptical" thinking.

 

Even Skeptic's need something to believe in

 

By "outside the current ability..." I could infer that you mean those who have paranormal experiences have heightened senses to we closed-minded (;)) sceptics. It could well be true, all I ask is that it's proved.

 

What do sceptics need to believe in? And by "believe" I assume you mean something more like "have faith in".

[DC 536]

The default position (as with most things paranormal) ought to be non-belief. Simply ascribing a paranormal explanation to something just because it's outside of your current ability to understand it makes little sense. In what might be seen by some as an attempt to understand something you're simply adding an extra layer of complexity that doesn't need to be there.

 

It seems apt to say that Thor was to Thunder what Aliens are to UFOs.

But do you have belief in your stance of non-belief? Isn't what you have a belief system as well? And doesn't that require some faith with certain situations?

 

And we all begin with the default position. It is our experiences that swing us one way or the other. In my case, I have (on three separate instances) seen something that I believe originated outside our planet, hence I have a belief towards alien lifeforms.

What do sceptics need to believe in?

Their perception of truth.

[Guest Al Stevens]

And once again when science turns around and says they got "X amount of different brainwaves and there is clear footage of interaction with something which doesnt look natural or beyond normal" Sceptics will turn around and say that its some one who is making it up even though there is recorded records and footage.

 

The sceptics that i have met (and talked to online) seem to have faith in not wanting to believe that there is something which cannot be explained without being mocked

[DC 536]

A lot (not all) of scepticism stems from fear of the unknown and the realisation that there could be some things out there beyond their control.

[Omega 354]

A lot (not all) of scepticism stems from fear of the unknown and the realisation that there could be some things out there beyond their control.

 

Proper Skeptics or just people who are skeptical?