Thank you. I just subscribed to this subreddit recently and this has been bothering me too.

Some facts are objective and undisputable. Facts which can be demonstrated by experiment time and time again, for example. Of course, I am referring to the scientific method.

Then, there are 'facts' which are commonly accepted but not testable. These facts, which form the narrative for our culture are always up for interpretation, if you ask me.

I wish that r/conspiracy would make a distinction between these.

I wish that r/conspiracy would make a distinction between these.

That will never happen,misinformation and disinformation is the absolute opposite of clarification.

Maybe it's the grammar but I fear I am missing some of your meaning. Would you elaborate, please?

/r/conspiracy like any forum or community about conspiracy is managed so don't expect actually interesting stories or discussions to last long.

Including this.

Do you mean 'managed' as in 'moderated'?

The moderators don't necessarily have to be the source.

But yes I mean watched and counteracted.

Really?

A conspiracy theory about r/conspiracy! So meta! =D

You must be very new here.

New to this subreddit, yes. I figured that I would subscribe as I enjoy a good conspiracy. I'm getting the sense that I'll be disappointing by the discussions here. Unsubscribing now.

As they say, ignorance is bliss.

Sometimes it's just not worth sifting through the mounds of crazy to get to the juicy nuggets of interesting.

Yes, it is easier to just take what your given.

Or to mine sources which are more reliably stocked with the good stuff.

I'm curious what sources you talk of and why you think they are more reliably stocked with the good stuff.

Sure. I work in science and thus there is always an amazing amount of information about the unknown coming in through all channels. I can be fairly certain that most of this information is reliable as it's published in peer reviewed journals and I understand the underlying theories and the scientific foundation upon which the results are based. This is not to say that errors or even fraudulent claims don't sneak through and there is no way of knowing how much of our knowledge is currently based upon incorrect ideas, but there is a solid mechanism which can be trusted... a method, the Scientific Method. Fraudulent science, at least in any topic of importance, is very likely to be eliminated once the next group comes along and either tries to repeat the idea or build on it. It's a self-correcting system.

Let's contrast this with r/conspiracy. It seems that this is a paradoxical place where people believe nothing told to them through official channels (ie. a pharmaceutical company or the government suggesting it's a good idea to vaccinate your kids) but everything told to them by people who are in a position to know the least about a subject (big pharma man, they want to vaccinate your babies and then sell them autism drugs!). There does not seem to be any mechanism to distinguish the reliability of sources.

I'll give you an example of a good conspiracy: The truth about 9-11.

Now, for an example of a bad conspiracy: Fluoride in drinking water is a plot devised by alien lizards to sterilize humanity to prepare Earth for eventual subjugation.

What separates them, you might ask (if it's not obvious)? In one, reliable people who are experts in their field have excellent evidence that the truth does not match the official story. In the other, it's just a mishmash of random crap thrown together without any logic or the guidance of any of the appropriate experts.

After spending some time in this subreddit, it seems like this second class of conspiracy is the preferred modus operandi. Pass.

I work in science

Verified.

Beep; Boop.

I was gonna say the same, then i saw you,

Can you explain what you mean?

That's the basic postulate of all conspiracy theories.

If there is a conspiracy someone must be hiding the information.

http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=websterb&date=121116

Would you elaborate on your meaning?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_500.gif

All scientific, individually testable facts are not suspect.

All historical facts are suspect.

Moon landing for instance, there is a clear motive why the U.S. might fake such and event, and there is some evidence that it was faked, (waving flag or whatever). Reptilians I can't defend. Global warming is generally accepted as fact, MAN MADE global warming isn't. Climate-gate and no publicity of long term graphs has something to do with that. Obama birther conspiracy, I don't know enough about and is not heavily defended here (I think).

Any time an authoritative body claims something (e.g. Benghazi attack was caused by youtube video) it is immediately considered true by the media at large, the fact is considered innocent until proven guilty. It is also true that history is written by the winners. This means that one must be skeptical of all facts that aren't independently verifiable past AND present because our government has a very long history of lying about major and minute things, and history is obviously full of revisions especially when it comes to historically charged events (Rape of Nanking). I hope that helped.

There is also pretty clear evidence that we put things on the moon. Indisputable, Scientific, Evidence

Edit: and the gradual degradation of the reflectors' capabilities clearly shows WHEN they were placed there.

That could have been put there after the original "moon landing". What gets me the most is that no outher country ever has got anywhere near the moon. Not even close. Not even attempted. And that technology is 50 years old, but Elon Musk can't even come close to the moon with today's technology.

Just a question -- would you like me to explain why SpaceX has not gone there, won't go there, and can't afford it?

I'm a Space nerd, so I can if you would like to listen.

Sure, I would like to know. Don't be mad if i ask follow up questions though.

Of course not.

First -- you should be aware of the Mars Society. Elon Musk is a member.

The president of the Mars Society is a man named Robert Zubrin. He is a very intelligent man that I respect, but in my experience is a pretty big dickhead (at least the times we talked).

While working at Lockheed Martin, Mr. Zubrin did some math -- excluding the additional weight of food and return fuel, the cost (in both money and fuel) to get to mars is only ~1% greater than that to get to the moon.

This is because of Escape Velocity. Once you attain Earth Escape Velocity you can just coast to wherever it is you are going. NASA knows this quite well; the vast majority of the fuel used to reach the moon is consumed just trying to get out of immediate Earth orbit.

Mr. Zubrin set out to find a way to make this happen - and he developed a device that, with energy input, could be used to make all the rocket fuel necessary to return (and breathable oxygen) from the Martian atmosphere (with a bit of a catalyst imported from Earth IIRC).

Thus, Mars Direct was born.

Note the name -- Direct. NASA had previously planned to establish a moon base and space station as waypoints to the rest of the solar system -- that was the end goal of Apollo.

When Nixon nixed those plans, there was a lot of fallout. The whole planned progression was in jeopardy. This is where the Space Shuttle and Skylab came from; they were meant to be a compromise between the old plans and new ones. The thought was that the planned re-usable taxi to orbit( the Space Shuttle) and the first step (Skylab) would be built, then the rest accomplished as funds were available.

Zubrin realized that this was a humongous waste of resources; we started putting infrastructure together that would likely never be used (and wasn't) at great cost. In order to launch from orbit, we would have to ferry all the materials up to orbit over several trips, and THEN launch. We'd be having to achieve escape velocity multiple times, instead of simply once.

Thus -- Mars Direct.

That long interlude was necessary because Mars Direct is still the plan. Elon Musk is on board. That's why there has been so much hooplah about Mars from him, and space in general.

The important point here is that the goal is to get Humans to Mars so we can live there. Everything else is build up to that point.

Because of things like the generator Zubrin designed (and many many other items) it will be easier for us to live on Mars than the moon, by many orders of magnitude.

So, we send light-weight robust probes to the moon. The point is purely science now. There is no real reason to put people there; it is less hospitable than Mars, costs just as much to get there, and MORE to live there.

In Modern day NASA, that simply is not worth it. And NASA is SpaceX's sole customer.

SpaceX is a company pursuing profit. To go to the moon would bankrupt them, for no reason.

Musk is playing the long game, and trying to drive down costs until NASA agrees to finally do Mars Direct, or something similar.

Why hasn't China or Russia - Countries with near dictators and unlimited funds even tried to go to the moon? Can you imagine the impact of China having a moon base?

Maybe they are doing the mars Direct thing because they are banned from commercializing the colonization of the moon, but not mars.

They are working on it, and Russia did try very hard.

Part of it is resources -- the soviets had very little aluminum IIRC, and had to make do with steel.

The rest - between Jack Parsons, Werner Von Braun, and many other people (including some from the Manhattan project, IIRC), the USA simply had a higher percentage of those people capable of attempting it at that time.

The whole point then was to get there first; after the first manned mission the USA performed, the rest coasted along on its momentum (because they had already been designed and prepared).

As shown above, the Soviets gave up afterward. It didn't help that their Space program was more about saving internal face than actual progress -- see the death of Vladimir Komarov. (Here is a video on it, including his last words. Careful, it is horrible. He KNEW he would likely die going up, but also knew that it was either him or his friend Yuri Gagarin. Soviet politics dictated a launch., regardless.)

The Chinese have ONLY recently reached the point in rocket technology that they can attempt this. See Chinese Lunar Exploration Program. They plan to have a manned mission there very soon. All of their rocket technology was inherited from the Soviets, and those two stopped cooperating after 1960. Simply put, they killed off or drove off all of the people capable of putting them on the moon.

Oh, and a reply to your addendum -- the Moon Treaty applies to Mars as well.

HOWEVER. No Space-faring nation ratified it. The U.N. holds it as law, but the U.S.A., Russia, China... not so much.

That will be a big brouhaha at some point.

I must stress that while Musk and Zubrin are both fans of Mars Direct - NASA is not yet.

Their plans still include carrying all of your fuel with you to Mars; no living off of the land.

Because of that, the official plan/stance will likely never happen. It will be Ludicrously expensive (since the cost of carrying your fuel with you increases not at a linear rate, but an exponential one).

Edit: and the gradual degradation of the reflectors' capabilities clearly shows WHEN they were placed there.

No it couldn't. Before maybe, but not after.

Yeah we put things on Mars too. Does that provide any evidence whatsoever that we have put men on Mars?

I'm sorry, I did not see this reply.

I was careful to state nothing about the men, since they cannot be easily verified after the fact.

The reflectors were placed there. Either it was by men, by someone else, or NASA did it with robots and faked the Manned part.

Our knowledge of robotics was far too crude to do so at that time. It seems very unlikely to me that it was done that way. Far more likely for humans to have been used.

If you did not mean to imply the reflector was evidence of men landing on the moon, then why did you post it on a thread about men landing on the moon?

Also to recap you believe:

• NASA's "knowledge of robotics" was far to crude to rotate a reflector up/down/left/right.

• NASA's "knowledge of robotics" was good enough to make a video camera pan, zoom, and track a rocket during liftoff. Video

Yes, that's what he believes. The technology to turn a video camera was there; all that it requires is a motor for each axis and a radio for remote control and image transmission. The motors also need not be precise. Here's a video of the camera panning some more after the Apollo 17 launch

On the other hand, landing on the moon and placing a reflector via robots is considerably more difficult. I think it would be possible with enough effort even at the time, but it would be more difficult than turning a camera.

Hey cool beliefs, you might want to read this article and then reconsider them.

[deleted]

[deleted]

You are incorrect. The array uses cube retroreflectors that direct light back in the direction it came from. An error of 1/100th of a degree would make no difference; the libration of the moon alone would have a much greater effect on the angle.

You are the first person to actually read the article. If you read lower I actually mention this.

So the math is correct.

The need for humans to plant them physically is bogus. You are right.

I was not intimately aware of that portion of the project, and spoke without checking to see if NASA had done something even more ingenious.

So on this minor point, yup. I'm wrong.

The rest still stands though.

Or it could reflect all angles.

Like this little thing... http://imgur.com/hZYfY

To an extent this is already done, with a limited subset of possibilities (to correct for the nature of the Moon's non circular orbit).

[deleted]

heh

I cannot argue with your impeccable logic. you win.

[deleted]

Conspiracy theorists believe what they want to believe. People with even a mediocre understanding of science require reason and evidence.

Your evidence is meaningless since a reflector is not a human.

Not that I'm saying we haven't been to the moon,since I'm pretty sure we have and found "very interesting things" on it.

Evidence that we have put things on the moon is meaningless since those things are not human?

So, the only way to test gravity is to watch a person fall, instead of an object?

That's absurd mang.

We are talking in the context of the moon landings, correct?

Yes.

We have:

1. NASA Announcing they would be placed there on those missions.

2. They are, in fact, there.

3. They are where NASA said they were.

4. The degradation of their abilities neatly fits with those dates. They were at the very least CLEANED at that time.

Either NASA placed them as they stated they would, or someone else did and that someone else was in communication with NASA.

Occam's razor would state the former is true.

I'm not saying we haven't been to the moon,just that your arguments are silly.

NASA Announcing they would be placed there on those missions.

I have absolutely not trust in what NASA says.

They are, in fact, there.

They are where NASA said they were.

What kind of circular logic is this.

The degradation of their abilities neatly fits with those dates. They were at the very least CLEANED at that time.

There you see? you can make a good argument if you try,even if you give absolutely no details on what you mean.

Occam's razor

Every time I hear about this it's like I get a frontal lobotomy.

You not trusting NASA has nothing to do with this.

Here is how things went down:

1. NASA says that they are going to the moon, and will place reflectors somewhere near THESE spots (by the landing zone).

2. At approximately that time, those reflectors begin to be able to be detected; and they are exactly where NASA said the reflectors would be.

3. The reflectors ability to reflect has degraded over time, due to particulate matter settling on them. If you follow the trend lines, the point at which they appear to have had no dust on them coincides with the time that they were supposedly placed.

4. Thus, the reflectors were either placed there by NASA as they said would happen, OR

Someone else put them there before that point, and cleaned them at the appropriate time.

SO

Someone (either NASA or another party) put reflectors on the Moon. They are exactly where NASA said they would be. Decay trend lines match the dates NASA provided.

In other words: you are faced with a large, tusked and grey-skinned creature that matches the physical description of an elephant.

Which is more likely -- that it is another creature wearing the skin of an elephant, or that it is, indeed, an elephant?

THAT or it could be those reflectors are just darts to the moon.

Throw them at the moon,they hit,they work.

No need for a human in the equation.

In other words: you are faced with a large, tusked and grey-skinned creature that matches the physical description of an elephant.

Which is more likely -- that it is another creature wearing the skin of an elephant, or that it is, indeed, an elephant?

That presumes that you have all the previous knowledge and variables correct.

Going to the moon for the first time is akin to going to an alien planet and finding a creature with that description and calling THAT an elephant.

THAT or it could be those reflectors are just darts to the moon.

Awesome. So, we (or someone) put them there by the point in time the Apollo missions were supposed to have landed.

You just agreed with my main point.

Yes but that's not a human, which is MY point.

Okay. I was careful to make my initial argument not about whether men had been on the moon, but rather that there is evidence that NASA put something there, and it is most likely the product of men going to the moon.

I can't prove to you that men have been on the moon, since they are no longer there. But I can prove that someone has put things there, and it fits with everything NASA has said about when they went.

That's why I subscribe to the Corbett Report and RT

Climategate has been debunked multiple times now.

That is a FACT.

MAN MADE global warming isn't.

Yes, it is

There's a lot of libertarians in this subreddit. They're pretty close to the money on a lot of things, but unfortunately many of them have inherited a kind of inductive mode of thinking from the religious right. You take a set of foundational principles, like "the free market will solve our problems", and your worldview consists of all those principles which, ideally, follow logically from those axioms. So when up against a logical inconsistency, such as "the free market will not solve the problem of global warming", then one must be denied, and little surprise which one it is.

I also see a lot of the logical fallacy which goes like:

A does X, therefore, everything that A does is X.

and, closely related:

If Y wasn't X, then A wouldn't do it, therefore Y is X.

For example, Goverments do bad things, therefore everything Governments do is bad. Our founding fathers were Christian, therefore America is a Christian nation. The mainstream media lies to us, therefore everything the MSM says is a lie. If Global warming weren't a lie, the MSM wouldn't say it, therefore AGW is a lie. Therefore Obama is a secret muslim. Therefore the UN wants to take over America and institute a one world government.

Again, I think its evidence of a structurally rigid, binary form of thinking, that favors internal consistency over factual completeness, even at the expense of denying empirical facts. The phenomena is of course exacerbated when people of this type get into conspiracy theorizing, as one of the foundational axioms of the conspiracy theory is that many "empirical facts" may be called into question. And, additionally, the conspiracy has such immense explanatory power that no sutbleness or nuance needs to be introduced into the discussion in order to rectify an inconsistency--and nuance is difficult. We can avoid the question of whether or not governments do good things (and therefore, avoid the extremely difficult task of sussing out which things governments do are bad and which are good, or trying to find out which MSM claims or narratives are lies or factual) by introducing a conspiracy.

None of which is to say that conspiracies don't exist, "empirical facts" shouldn't be called into question, or that logical consistency isn't a good thing, but I do think there's a few hobgoblins around here gumming up the works.

Very well said. As a former libertarian I can attest that is exactly what I did for years. It was when I started studying ethics and learned about ethical theories outside of "natural law" and egoism, such as deontology and utilitarianism, that I began to change the way I thought about the world.

Like a lot of libertarians I thought I knew a lot about economics as well, until I took a macro economics class and realized that most of what we called "economics" was just egoistic moral theory applied to how the economy should work. This isn't to say that there aren't libertarian economists, but unbridled capitalism is not exactly a mainstream view among those with PhDs in econ (which of course means that they're covering up the truth because they're evil communists).

as someone who is apparently tired of 'libs' I really appreciated this post

[deleted]

There is nothing else. "History" are tales told from a perspective, usually the one of the people who survive the struggles. You will never know "what actually happened". Not even if you witnessed it yourself, because your senses are flawed, limmited and easy to fool.

The idea that you can get the absolute truth about any event beyond you immediate sphere of experience is hillariously naive.

I SAID THIS ---You do realize that for a very very long time the masses and the facts that were verified believed the world was flat, and not believing so was punishable by death. I WAS WRONG. I was taught this in school and never actually questioned it, ObsecurityPrince dealt a striking blow and in my chance to defend myself i fell victim to learning. Apparently humans ever thinking to world was flat is a myth, yet taught in schools o_0. i suppose cavemen could be an exception but thats not the point. Done.

You do realize that for a very very long time the masses and the facts that were verified believed the world was flat, and not believing so was punishable by death.

[Citation needed]

Well played sir, well played. Did not expect to learn that. How is it that that actually gets taught in school......i will edit.

I'm glad you're one of the few here who can accept when they were wrong. Changed my downvote to an up for ya :)

Apparently humans ever thinking to world was flat is a myth

Really? I am new to this link please

EDIT

Just to be clear you are saying, humans have always known the Earth to be round?

The Greeks calculated the circumference of the round Earth to a decent degree of accuracy, as well as our axial tilt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

The greeks knew a lot of stuff but that not mean everyone else agreed on the point. Let me rephrase, that might help

Has it always been the common consensus around the world, the Earth was round?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Decline_of_the_Flat_Earth_model

Sorry for two wiki links. This is both fascinating reading and a good examination of your question though.

Thank you bro

Pretty sure any civilization that looked at the stars were savvy enough that they knew the world was round.

Wow, that is some statement.

with probably the exception of stone age peoples im sure, so not all humans ever the myth has to do with the likes of christopher columbus. Apparently his scuffle about sailing off the edge of the world was actually about how large the world was.

• http://www.discovery.org/a/2587

• wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

• heres a book- http://www.amazon.com/dp/027595904X/?tag=stackoverfl08-20

• short youtube vid- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhcExKxzkrU

• TWP- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/busting-a-myth-about-columbus-and-a-flat-earth/2011/10/10/gIQAXszQaL_blog.html

Cheers, will look into this

Since they cared to ask the question anyhow.

[deleted]

question: what fiasco? i don't pay attention to that man usually and i would love to hear about him being exposed as a manipulative nut.

Ok that makes more sense, unfortunately the only answer is to see evidence first hand, with your own eyes. Of course that is impossible for most of us and we must rely on our own experiences and gut feeling to fill in the rest. Sifting through others "facts" until we find what makes sense to us, which oddly enough is how i believe religion came to be. Of course im not happy with this answer we should all be able to trust our news channels to tell us an actual truth, we should be able to trust our government doesn't keep secrets from the people that empowers them. What is your take on this or are you just throwing darts at a wall hoping something sticks ;)

What is "the AJ fiasco"?

at what point do we discredit mainstream sources and academics.

Do it immediately,if you want truth it is better to start from a blank state,otherwise "your cup is full".

You have a working brain capable of analyzing information,you don't need anything else.

"Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency."

"Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency."

-Alhazen

I love conspiracies. Always have. I read them all; reptiles from the center of the earth (love it), moon landing hoax, JFK assassination, etc. What I've found is that conspiracies are a lot like religions for some people. There are different types and deepness of belief and as with religion, some of them require that you disregard any proof that your religion/worldview is wrong. These are the "theories" that make it hard for people to believe the real conspiracies. There are real conspiracies out there and they don't require you disregard facts.

Which conspiracies are the real ones? The only real conspiracies I know of are generally accepted by historians, scientists and laymen alike.

I appreciate your concern for this subreddit's ability to be factual, or to take information that isn't epistemically varifiable as being the truth. This is certainly needed here. I disagree with some of what you said, and I'll try to mention what I can here.

So lets get into this. Those participating in this subreddit are committed to getting at the "truth" about both specific topics of discussion, and a meta-level of how reality is structured and functions. This is not an easy task, and can often lead to provocative conclusions...

As BadgerGecko alluded to, you have perhaps inadvertently grouped anyone interested in a somewhat "conspiratorial worldview" together, saying that basically none of us are interested in varified facts, admitting when we're wrong, or that all of us are speculatory, most all the time... Are there members here who are perhaps very influenced by less-than-credible information sources, who perhaps do not have the experience of approaching everything they read from a more meta-epistemic context? Definitely. Those people also tend to be "on fire" with a cause, often being the most vocal on a topic, because complexities are difficult and time consuming to convey...

With that said, as you were getting at, "facts" should be valued here. Pursuing the truth involves a self-dialectic, constantly questioning what we "know" and "believe", which should include questioning all information considered to be "fact"...

I wanted to know why many on r/conspiracy feel that general widely verified facts held up by our society at large are suspect and why they choose to believe....

This is my primary issue with what you have written. You have an underlying assumption in your loaded question that there is a dichotomy between the mainstream- as you would say- "widely verified as factual" understanding of history, economics, science, ect, and this community's speculative questioning or theorizing of alternatives to those "facts"... Regardless of specific examples, you are making a general argumentum ad verecundium; where-by, simply because an information source has a preconceived "authority", that information source is factual.

Are there no examples of previously "widely verified facts" that we later found out to be purposefully falsified information? Is it not the case that powerful people have knowingly caused problems, formed reactions via propaganda, and then stepped in with a solution where themselves and their cohorts are the ultimate benefactors? To what extent do we accept the "factual" information from "expert opinion", and does funding and interest play a role in how trusting the public should be of those arguing from said authority?

This community simply chooses to holistically look at where interests, funding, relationships, and documented philosophies are situated in relation to the information that is being told, and asking questions to see where there are potential contradictions. Admittedly, there can be a degree of speculation when attempting to specifically answer certain questions, or when attempting to hypothesize and investigate where there are falsities in any "official fact", but this is the nature of following leads and logically deducing where contradictions may lie, hopefully nearing the truth... Never the less, as you correctly get at, this community should be very wary of the claims they make as being factual, and admitting where there is a level of speculation.

I personally do not claim to know the truth about very many topics considered to be "conspiratorial". This is because epistemically speaking, to know means to be sufficiently, empirically verified with corroborating evidence. Much of the "facts" that are mentioned both in this subreddit and in the mainstream actually fall in the category of belief; whereby, conclusions can be drawn, but there are perhaps subtle assumptions or unforseen contradictions or uncertainties that are easily made apparent. This is especially true in the social-sciences and less-so in the empirical sciences. When these fields become interdisciplinarily related, as in the case of man-made climate change for example, topics become much more complex,and "facts" become difficult to both validate or debunk...

So in short, I agree with you that those in this subreddit should be wary of what claims they make, providing empirical evidence, and intellectually honest sources, while admitting speculation when it happens... I do not agree with the broad characterization of those in this sub, and I do not agree with your fundamental argument that we shouldn't be suspicious or questioning of the "facts" that are given to us by those speaking from apparent authority. I'm saying that simply because one has an advanced degree in a specific field doesn't mean that they are beholden to having the utmost intellectual and epistemic integrity in all claims that they make, and quite often, such "experts" are actually beholden to their own personal interests in how they formulate conclusions...

after the Alex Jones debacle this last few weeks.

What happened? I must have missed it.

It turns out Alex Jones is a fear-mongering-for-profit, immoral bag of shit.

Yes! It was quite a revelation to me as well!

In other news Jessie Ventura is a former professional wrestler. He's an entertainer.

He fought off an alien in Guatemala, I SEEN IT.

Didn't we already know that? I was just wondering exactly what it was. :p

Turns out he is a lying, fear-mongering, greedy asshole.

In a related report, the sun rose today, early stories confirm that it did, in fact, rise from the east. Water remains wet, and the sky seems to be some sort of shade of blue. Back to you Ollie.

ALEX JONES IS A MORON!

Thanks Ollie.

You have come in here with a very large paint brush sir, unfortunately you will need a far smaller one to answer your question.

I'll just leave these here:

Why Are These Fraudulent Papers Unretracted?

Harvard Teaching Hospital to Face Trial for Research Fraud

Fraud and Science | Psychology Today

Misconduct Widespread in Retracted Science Papers

How Drug Company Money Is Undermining Science - Scientific American

As drug industry’s influence over research grows, so does the potential for bias

WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies” - British Medical Journal

BMJ investigation exposes corruption and conflicts of interest within the World Health Organization

I made no such judgements or claims of trust/distrust. I simply presented some facts.

Question: How many of those "hundreds of thousands of accurate works of science" used citations from the "300 retracted and fraudulent" papers but were never retracted? And how many of those were used as a basis for others? It's a domino effect.

I'm reminded of a physics instructor I had many moons ago. We had a problem that we solved mathematically. Then we took measurements of it in real life. The answers were different of course. The instructor explained that it was close enough and thus was "proof". Never, ever, ever will measurements in the physical world/universe be exactly, precisely the same as the corresponding mathematical model. Mathematics is exact. No science is. Thus, mathematics is the "most single, verifiable" and provable "information source known to man", not science. Science has theories whereas mathematics has theorems. Theories are not provable, only disprovable. Theorems are provable.

That being said, I have no reason to completely distrust any of the physical sciences. However, I retain varied levels of skepticism about anything and everything.

http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=websterb&date=121116

After reading through it all, i'm gonna say troll thread.

Yes, they are all suspect and you shouldn't trust any man, or woman. Check it out for yourself and stop looking for someone to lead you. So many have been led over the cliff that the chasm is starting to become alarmingly full.

[deleted]

Oh, don't forget that any criticism of Israel makes you an anti-Semitical bastard. Any criticism, that is.

All facts are suspect. Trying to get to the crux of anything, not to mention a conspiracy where people have purposely mislead is difficult to say the least. Sure, get an article from InfoWars, don't stop there, look at sources. Then analyze the same source material, perhaps you might come to a different conclusion, or realize much of what you thought was fact was speculation. History is written down, but really its based on PHYSICAL eveidence, some of which you cannot get your hands on. For example, how do we really know Caeser was in charge in Britian in 1AD. Well other than the physical evidence of his journal, there are physical coins with his name on them dating from the time. Point is, all evidence comes down to PHYSICAL evidence. Books written on history have sources, ultimately the sources come down to an archeological dig with physical evidence. Go to the source, draw your own conclusions, that is what the experts have done. If you find an expert you trust more than others, use them more than the rest.

Additionally, you could get educated in the scientific method, and the pitfalls of heuristics and biases. It's not easy to analyse research journals without knowing what to look for, or how to interpret it. This is why laymen (usually) trust the scientific consensus, because they don't have time or the ability to understand it themselves. And this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and we all do it, all the time.

A lot of people on this subreddit are fundamental christians and religious people. These people will believe anything as long as it's "in the bible", or what their pastor or priest told them. I'm continually frustrated going up against people who think that evolution is "just a theory", for example, and think the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Erm are you sure this comment is only pointed at this subreddit?

My experience is conspiracy and fundamental religious folk do not normally dance together

Yeah it's been my experience here, and on sites like Infowars, etc.

They must keep out my way, I'm gonna go hide!

Coming from North-East Texas lineage, I can ASSURE you the two go hand in hand very often.

So... no such thing as a "Right-Wing conspiracy theorist?" They usually are Christian, aren't they?

My experience.......

Ah. I see. LOL! Hit the Bible belt of America and places like Texas (no offense to Texans!). There is a reason the "Dale Gribble" character exists. LOL!

And that conspirators are influenced by demons or satan instead of just being greedy assholes. Or that anything scientific is a lie designed to lead people away from Jesus. Or that global warming must be bullshit because God gave us this planet to do whatever we want to it.

You're right, many ideas about life are distorted by the church or by followers and their kooky theories. But they still have the fundamentals correct. Fundamentals being, 1) God exists, 2) Jesus existed 3) Jesus was God in man form. Before you criticize my argument, please finish the read.

These are the only things that i'm sure of. Now, let me elaborate on the word, God. Because that word evokes images of some sky grandpa that has magical powers. This image of God was created by the modern christian church, if not purposely then accidentally.

I'm more talking about God that is existence. God isn't an physical entity. He's more of a omnipresent force that is always in existence and always has been. God in a metaphysical sense. As if, we are God, but in a sense that God is in us because he is us. And we are God because we create our own reality, not because we have magical powers. It's almost similar to a combo of eastern and western religious philosophy.

This is all that I have figured out is for certain. Everything else in up in the air and must be decided a later day. Because of the complexity behind the issue of God, there must be multiple sources observed and taken in to consideration when reading into God. The bible is an old document and is a copy of a copy of a translation of a translation and etc. Also, the bible has been altered by the reigning political powers in order to justify their agenda. Meaning, of course, it lost its original, exact meaning. However, the rough translation is there.

All i'm trying to get across is that some more research should be given into this subject. I understand the frustration of talking to someone who believes they will be persecuted for sinning against an ultimate ruler of all of creation. However, this isn't the view of every single person who claims to be christian. Thinking that this is the only view of all christians is not only ignorant, but reflects you are a shallow thinker.

There are many different denominations and literature that vary between the factions of christian faith. But they all share the 3 fundamentals that I listed. And, your research into the religion will reveal that these are the only things you can truly believe concerning this religion. Everything else is up in the air and could be a construct of man.

A good read for anyone interested in the christian religion and looking at it from a skeptic or theologic perspective is Reason for God by Tim Keller.

Not to offend or criticize, but if you are interested, you should really do some further investigation. The text of the Bible was not altered by any political powers -- we have many copies of the original manuscripts from which all the books of the present Bible are transcribed, many of which date back to the first century AD and earlier, and we are completely capable of comparing current versions against these manuscripts to identify discrepancies. Likewise, the modern Bible absolutely is not a copy of a copy, a translation of a translation, or a "game of telephone," like I'll hear people saying sometimes. Rather, every time a new translation of the Bible is released, these old manuscripts, alone, are evaluated and compared against one another in order to produce the most correct possible translation. Now, as time passes, we keep discovering more and more ancient copies of these manuscripts, and of course, our world and our language is also changing rapidly. What this means is that there is constantly a newer, better, or more authentic way to translate the original manuscripts in order to make their text more understandable to the present day person. This is the reason more and more translations are published so regularly. The translations are dependable every time.

God is not some nondescript energy that can be applied universally to all belief systems. God has a will. Jesus Christ represented his will. The apostles represented his will and the teaching of Christ. The Spirit of God confirms all these things, and is likewise corroborated by Christ and his apostles. Each of these sources unanimously testifies Scripture is authentic, is good, is accurately representative of God, and remains this way by God's power. Do not be confused.

Cheers.

There was a discussion really similar to this in r/christianity. And I think the issue needs to be re-addressed by more sources because I have heard people state what you are claiming and I've heard the opposite.

You say that the bible wasn't altered by any political powers. I'm sorry but I can't accept that. It's very obvious the bible was being used to control the behavior of people and give them a guilty conscious for existing. Not by God or for God, but by man for their political gain and territorial gain. The bible keeps many people fearful of punishment for simply being alive (because we can't help but sin every second) and keeps them obedient to the laws of their land. It's like how marriage was used to combine empires or take over land.

My point being, that men have used the bible to facilitate control over other men. So when I say the bible was altered, I mean the language could have been misinterpreted (language is a very sensitive area, especially when translating across old, dead languages into ones that are newly being used) or that some books could have been added or deleted because they helped or hurt the perception of the monarchy rule.

If you have any sources that provide evidence to support your claim that the bible hasn't been altered, then i'd love to see that. When searching for such evidence, I always find the opposite and discover more about how the bible (on my shelf) should be called into question.

I understand lots of research has been put into these books and translations by bible scholars. However, there was also lots research put into the calvinist viewpoint on christianity. I'm sure you know that this is where the trinity doctrine comes from and the rapture theory stems from. But those theories have been disproven. Also, what about the splitting of the church that occurred sometime around the 300's. I don't know the exact moment, but it was around the time of Constantine accepting the christian religion and implementing it as the Roman religion to replace paganism. That also could have brought changes in the way the religion was practiced. And it did, most christians have church on sunday nowadays. Instead of on the sabbath.

I agree: the Bible was used for illegitimate gains and control over populations. I also agree one method of using the Bible for such purposes is a reinterpretation of its language, encouraging it to be understood differently. However, I cannot accept that a redistribution of its books has better enabled the Bible to be used in this way. I only say that because I understand that, when manuscripts were ignored and disregarded in the process of canonizing its current form, it is because these manuscripts were propaganda of Qaballist and Gnostic origin which contradicted the other books in very dramatic ways that our current New Testament books simply do not. These alternate books were also known to have originated from different circumstances, different schools of thought, different regions, and different spans of time, which automatically showed the associations they claimed to the broader Scripture to be illegitimate.

Speaking of reinterpretation of language, though, I should mention that it is not the Bible at all which is responsible for a state of being "fearful of punishment simply for being alive." Rather, it is poor understanding of the Bible's text.

I'm not sure who told you the rapture theory and the Trinity doctrine have been disproven, since the only means of disproving such things is by correct analysis of the Bible's text. I agree the Bible speaks of no rapture, but it is clear to me that the Trinity is biblical. It took me time to understand, but now I understand. Perhaps others simply do not.

The "splitting of the church" was the Roman Empire adopting Christianity as its official state religion, after centuries of attempting to extinguish Christianity, but failing completely. In response, "official" churches were erected as state powers -- these were the Roman Catholic churches of the "Holy Roman Empire" -- and all the unofficial churches, or, in other words, those not sanctioned and controlled by the state, remained illegal; being persecuted regardless. The Bible, at this point, was largely monopolized by these state powers, being inaccessible to the common man for many centuries. It is during this time that we saw stuff like the Crusades and the Inquisition -- which sought out heretics who held onto illegal copies of the Bible, tortured them, and murdered them just for failing to submit to Catholic rule.

The Protestant Reformation, if you don't know, was a reform of the church by protest against its illegitimate rulers. This took place largely by the work of King James, who published the first Bible translated from the Latin of Catholic custom, in order that the common man could read it casually without requiring a high class education in liturgy. The story of Guy Fawkes, actually, is the story of Christ's enemies sending a soldier to assassinate King James before he could release this Bible to the public. He failed -- but in present day, he is back to finish the job and he has an army.

I'm sorry your searches for evidence are only producing the opposite of the factual information I am giving you. But maybe if you are interested in knowing what is what, you should stop learning from people with agendas who will lie?

Peace.

First of all, that last part. Totally unnecessary. You didn't provide any links and you insulted me. Soo..how can I even read or seriously consider the rest of your argument.

I'm sorry if I've inadvertently insulted you. But if my simply repeating statements you have made about your fruitless searches for evidence insults you; if my simply calling inaccurate information by its name is offensive to you, how do you suggest I help to tell you the truth except by insulting you and being offensive to you? I don't know the answer.

If you would like to read or seriously consider my argument, I only advise you not dismiss it by these characteristics.

It's more of your tone, thanks for insulting me more. I still see no link

I can already see the link's absence is not the reason you reject my posts, so I will offer you no link. I apologize.

There you go again.

Dude, how can we have a conversation if you have a superior tone and not links. Im not going to take your comments as all knowing and definitely won't even consider your arguments if they are written in a tone of superiority. Also, just because I have said one argument doesn't mean I believe in a similar one. I'm getting the vibe that you think you know all about the history of christianity and that you think you know my opinions about life.

However, I do like the information you provided. But understand, you know this information because you read it from sources. Where did these sources get their information and so on.

Anyway, I don't think the rapture is not going to happen as the church describes it. http://www.crivoice.org/rapture.html We will see a second coming, however that is manifested. Probably won't be a physical second coming of Jesus.

The trinity doctrine and rapture aren't in the Bible and are just human ideas and constructs based on their believed interpretation of the Bible. In the original languages of Greek and Hebrew, there are no words that match the word rapture because it is a latin word. I know you understand language is the only way we have been presented bible doctrine. And you understand that certain meanings of words can't be reproduced in a certain language. You have have the general meaning reproduced, but not the exact. And over time, if the language is being translated and translated, then it has to be altered somewhat. More importantly, language is only one way of presenting our opinions to others. There are thoughts and feelings that can't be put into words in certain languages or in language in general. Even now, I can't show you my minds thoughts without using so many different words. And even if I do, I still won't be able to portray my idea in the exact way as I see it. That would require way to many words. Well, do you not see the problem?

So, when you have the original, old Hebrew and you are translating said language into latin or whatever other form of language. You Will have change. It won't say the exact message that it used to. And since we interpret the verses instead of taking them literally, then we are at a loss for finding the original, exact translation. It seems as though it will never happen because man has made it impossible in this day and age. It has all been distorted so much there's no way anyone alive today will figure out the actual truth. It's too much information to process within a lifetime. If you have any time you should give this a listen. It explains the message i'm trying to portray about language. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy8kRrNMwBc&feature=related You can do a google search of Alan Watts if you like, but he's just a born and raised christian that understood many aspects I hope to articulate.

Also, here's a great read about the problem with translation. It concerns the council of nicea. http://www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea/

Also, were you hinting that anonymous is an army of guy fawkes coming to do away with the christian world? I agree that christianity is going to be persecuted a lot more once the financial system collapses. And yes, it will collapse. This is something I know for sure. The current fiat currencies have no other direction that is possible. But I don't think anonymous will have anything to do with that type of thing. I just seemed you were hinting at them by brining up guy fawkes and saying he has an army.

Words and languages are a key/value system. The words themselves are simply symbols, or signifiers. The meanings they represent are referents, or, in other words, the objects referred to by the symbols. Each rendition of the Bible has one single step in its translation process -- it is translated from the original manuscripts to whatever languages, in an attempt to preserve the same meaning. The words are not translated directly -- but the meaning is translated.

The ability to decode the meaning of the Bible's text comes primarily through one avenue: knowledge of the Bible. If you are familiar with the context of the words, the referents; the meaning of the text, is able to be deduced by the words, even if the words themselves may be ambiguous. Because words are simply symbols, and their true meanings are invisible; impossible to represent, the original texts can only imply the meaning -- exactly like a translation does.

the meaning of the Trinity doctrine is implied by the words of the Bible. The rapture doctrine, though, is not present.

regarding my tone and your efforts to make this exchange a dialectic: http://bible.cc/matthew/10-24.htm.

Koine Greek is not Hebrew. So, it is a copy of a copy that was copied before.

Some of the Word/Wisdom is there, but you have to filter all the nonsense first.

God is not some nondescript energy that can be applied universally to all belief systems. God has a will. Jesus Christ represented his will. The apostles represented his will and the teaching of Christ. The Spirit of God confirms all these things, and is likewise corroborated by Christ and his apostles. Each of these sources unanimously testifies Scripture is authentic, is good, is accurately representative of God, and remains this way by God's power.

But where is all this confirmed by God? The Bible? How? "It says it in the Bible, so it is true, because the Bible said it" isn't going to work.

You are disqualified permanently from my conversations. I have nothing to say to liars and troublemakers.

Yeah right. When faced with logic, you cower.

You are what's wrong with this subreddit. You, and people like you are being addressed in this thread.

First, I will commend you for having faith but not swallowing everything your church tells you. But I don't see how you can speak about Church distortions and still believe absolutely that Jesus existed and was the embodiment of God. The earliest reference to Jesus we have was from about a hundred years after his death, by that time the church was already a group of men with no first hand knowledge of biblical tales vying for power. I feel that it's not only possible, but likely that the powers given to Jesus in the Bible were exaggerations to get more people to believe.

There are many different denominations and literature that vary between the factions of christian faith. But they all share the 3 fundamentals that I listed.

That's because those are the three ideas that Christianity is based off of. Without Jesus there is no Christianity, so any new denomination would never be able to sell it. Actually, without Jesus you have Judaism.

I think it goes further than faith. Because to have faith in something is to blindly believe and hope that something is there. I know God exists, at least for me. I don't have to have faith in Jesus, but rather know Jesus.

I think Jesus had a vast understanding of consciousness and that's why he said he was God. He understood the subtle energy of the universe and that's something that had been forgotten. Perhaps, he was able to perform the miracles not because he had special powers different than any man. But because he knew how to tap into this subtle energy and make it work the way he desired. That seems to make a lot more sense considering the recent scientific evidence being brought up about how these subtle energies effect our environment and our consciousness. The subtle energy being magnetics or an electrical force, for example: gravity.

We have evidence that subtle energy may have been important to certain egyptian civilizations as they were able to use the pyramids at giza to gather this energy and apply it in some way. The pyramids at Giza seems to be a machine or device rather than a burial chamber that newer egyptian pyramids represent.

Because to have faith in something is to blindly believe and hope that something is there. I know God exists, at least for me. I don't have to have faith in Jesus, but rather know Jesus.

Everyone says that they "know" their beliefs are the true ones, but until you have actual evidence it's no more than blind faith.

Perhaps, he was able to perform the miracles not because he had special powers different than any man. But because he knew how to tap into this subtle energy and make it work the way he desired.

But you already said that "Jesus was God in man form". So he should be more than just a guy who understood consciousness.

The subtle energy being magnetics or an electrical force, for example: gravity.

Yes, these energies are invisible and can effect the environment, but there is zero evidence that humans can control them.

Oh yeah and it's way better that we believe that we are a random chance from an explosion that occurred a trillion of billion years ago. I'm not saying either is true. But be fair, the big bang theory is way lunatic

the big bang theory is way lunatic

Only to people that know nothing about science. There are a lot of things in astronomy and physics that seem "way lunatic" compared to our daily life, which is only a minute piece of the universe.

we are a random chance

Another overly simplistic explanation used by religious people to make evolution sound unrealistic.

from an explosion that occurred a trillion of billion years ago

Same thing, but for the big bang.

Just trying to be fair. The previous people were massively misrepresenting a religion by overly simplifying a religious argument. They got upvotes because people support this misrepresentation. But, when the big bang theory is misrepresented you get a tons of downvotes.

I proved my point.

If your point was to show that faith and science are not equally valid, then yes, you proved a point.

It's more that people to understand that they go hand in hand. And until they do, then neither of them is correct. Because, we see that natural selection is very real. It's obvious, a white mouse will survive in the snow longer than a brown mouse. That's just basic common sense. Natural selection isn't really debatable. So that's why, when explaining evolution, this concept is always brought up. But, just cause the concept exists doesn't make evolution any more factual. It provides evidence for this theory, but doesn't make the theory fact. I know there's a lot more info that goes into this, but the other info isn't based on precise evidence.

Also, from theologic perspective, the earth is an unlabeled age. Genesis 1:1 suggests the earth was created at a certain point. Then Genesis 1:2 talks about how the earth had become a wasteland. Meaning, it was created. And then.. ?? Now, it was a wasteland and God started to restore the Earth in 7 days. That unknown time gap between verses 1 and 2 suggests events that almost destroyed the Earth at one point. Why the bible withholds that information, is the reason we are probably here. I'm not going to speculate on that though.

A Judeochristian theological perspective. Remember, that line of reasoning is bunk to anyone who wasn't raised in a church, temple, or mosque.

So you're saying this perspective is conditioned at a young age when it's presented to individuals of a skeptic mindset

Welcome to sociology.

what's that? you like acting like a superior know it all?

What? No, I was saying that understanding the lasting biases of early socialization is one of the foundations of sociology.

What? No, I was saying that understanding the lasting biases of early socialization is one of the foundations of sociology.

Ohhhhh. It's hard to know over the comp. my baad.

But yeah, you're right. I'm currently studying soc. I wish there was a combo of sociology, biology, and psychology. Like biopsychosocial studies. Because lets be honest, sociology and psychology are really similar. Combining those two into social psych already occurred or is occurring. But when will we consider these social psych factors on a biological level of the human body. Almost like psychobiology. But more of a social aspect given to it, that way you can benefit humans. That would be one badass major/degree/doctorate

Idk why i just wrote that.

oh! oh! neurology, man. combine a social psychology major with a minor in neurology or take upper level classes in the sociology of medicine and the sociology of mental illness, it's great stuff for exploring the biopsychosocial model of illness.

Real talk, though, the influence of genetics on behavior and preferences is at best poorly established.

Yes! That would be exactly what I would do if I had a second chance. But I think I'm already too far in to change my major.

And I totally agree. I think behavior is a function of personality and environment. A sociologist believes if he could control all aspects of an environment, then they could manipulate it in such a way to get a desired reaction.

So, I think genes influence our behavior in a sense of the technique or characteristic of a behavior but the actual action of the committing the behavior is influenced by our environment. But idk, just speculation

There's a big difference. Most religious arguments are equally valid because they are based on faith, or the bible. If a person says that someone is possessed by a demon, you can't exactly say that they have a misrepresented view on religion because Christianity doesn't deny the presence of demons or their ability to possess people. Just because that viewpoint is considered a little silly nowadays doesn't mean it's a misrepresentation. Scientific arguments are based on experimental data and findings, so it is much easier to identify a misrepresentation.

The universe is a very strange place.

Except for all that damned pesky science.

You start with a good question, but the rest of your post is utter garbage. To answer: yes, all facts are suspect. As a practical expedient, it makes sense to provisionally accept as true what seems to be the prevailing view of something. There is so much information out there, it is impossible to personally verify everything. But that does not justify dismissing contrarian views out of hand.

Know that you can never see your own eye, only a reflection of it.

So long as people do not qualify their knowledge, they will be entrapped by the deceptively comforting warmth of ignorance.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/26619539.jpg

The thing is, nothing is black or white. I like to use your global warming as an example.

The global warming phenomena as you call it, probably is not false. What probably is false is the amount humans contribute to global warming. What we probably should watch out for is people using global warming as an excuse to do bad things.

As I see it, people are greedy fucks always looking for a chance to be better than someone else, so there's a conspiracy everywhere.

[deleted]

But that's not really a conspiracy. A large fraction of the general population has the wisdom to not run up massive loans and put themselves under crippling debt. Those people who do go out and buy shit and run up massive bills they can't pay, they are seen as foolish by the other group.

You say: "As I see it, people are greedy fucks always looking for a chance to be better than someone else, so there's a conspiracy everywhere." This is a true statement. Those who say conspiracy's dont' exist are living in a world viewed with Rose tinted lenses.

All facts are suspect due to individual opinion and experience.

For example, people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old and those who believe it to be millions of years old could be presented supporting evidence for each opposing viewpoint. However, both would likely keep their original opinion based on previous knowledge supporting their own belief.

Indeed, but to those who think of the bible as "infallible", whatever it says will be taken as fact through their own willingness to believe what they have learned (from childhood to adulthood) is truth. If they did not, they would have to face the reality that what they have been brought up to believe all their life is a lie, and would feel most likely very confused and fearful of most other "facts" they think they know.

The point here is that no one would want to admit they are wrong and have their foundations of reality ripped from under them, so they will defend their "facts" to the death, no matter how absurd it really is.

I'm not disputing this, but I'd like to see your proof that it didn't just appear. Where's your proof?

Do you have any examples of "facts" not being accepted as truths?

Moon Landing

I've never heard of that fact before.

Start here

I guess I better to ask what your definition of fact is?

Do facts being verified matter or do we just choose the ones that fit into our desired world view?

yes

Just to play the devil's advocate:

they choose to believe that say for example that We never landed on the moon, even though we have the demonstrated capability to do so

What credentials allow you to say the capability was demonstrated?

Food for thought: What do you know about the moon? Things that You know indisputably?

• It is visible
• It appears to change size and shape

If you are a devoted astronomer, add in

• It follows a predictable pattern

Now, you may have learned several fun facts as a kiddo about the moon such as it's shape, size, mass, distance from earth, speed of orbit, tidal effects and so on; but it is highly unlikely that you actually even understand the equations used to compute these figures, let alone the means of how the inputs were teased out.

Suffice to say, there is a grand canyon between what you Know, and what you accept humanity "knows" so you don't have to bother knowing it. But science is terrific because it is relatively lovable and trustworthy. Science even says on your first date that it could be wrong, and that the more people that check it out, the better.

Technology like math is a wonderful win for science, showing perfectly what the scientific method can produce. Better yet, it is an experiment that you can do for free, and everyone in our country learns to do for free. Math is some of the most highly verified science we have, and also the most trusted.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, a hypothetical conspiracy: The LHC announces that they have concluded their experiments, they have found a new particle and that no more fundamental particles exist; we have found the very most basic building block of the universe (again). Then what? We accept that as as an incredible technological feat, as unrivaled as it was unproductive, and move on? For how long, 50 years? 100 years?

Is it that laughable to question this, or perhaps just wonder? This experiment is neigh irreproducible, barring a multinational budget. Follow that with little economic gain to be predicted and you are left with few people vying to buck big dogs.

Sound familiar?

[deleted]

He's /r/politics spillover, just look at his history.

Facts are only suspect if you believe that the whole world is out to get just you, and you specifically.

A fact is a fact, there's really no dancing around it. If something is proven then that's that.

The thing that makes Reddit so frustrating, at least in that regard, is that a few people circlejerking each other can turn the thread from a healthy discussion of information, to simply just a circle jerk of misinformation in a heart beat.

Okay, I see your argument. However, you're only using specific examples to make your argument stronger. You brought the position that we probably believe in disinfo because some of us don't accept generally empirically tested information. Or believe in some false info that was somewhat verified because we want to believe it's true. However, I believe your examples: Moon landing, repitilians, Alex Jones (mostly I just give no shits about AJ), are unpopular conspiracies among the higher educated.

A good example of your argument occurred during the GM corn rat study. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/

This study was more popular, and tricked more people with its language and procedure. Also, I believe it shows how research can be manipulated and probably has when it comes to products that cure cancer or HIV. Instead of products which cure terminal diseases, we have ineffective treatments that don't cure our problem. Treating the patients makes the Insurance companies more many than actually curing the patients. So, why the Fuck would a company lower it's revenue? for the betterment of mankind? How does that make any sense to the company? Their only goal to accumulate more money. And providing a cure would be killing over a market worth billions yearly.

I think you make an excellent point. Yet, politically, I think we are being lied to and those lies shape the facts that are exposed to the world. Meaning, the facts could be warped into half truths or just straight false info in order to protect a planned political agenda and control the information being circulated. That way, a politician is able to persuade the audience to favor his decisions based on the information we believe to be empirical fact.

You fall victim to this problem yourself when you say that the facts surrounding 9/11 are "murky."

Other than that, it's a good post.

A good rule of thumb is that any "fact" pushed or widely repeated by the mainstream media is likely false or misleading.

Like gravity?

Or the Spheroid Earth.

We all think it, clearly it can't be true.

Like dark matter that constitutes 84% of the matter in the universe?

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax. Just because your mainstream science magazines and the professor you're blowing says its true, doesn't make it true. Funding bias, confirmation bias, bandwagon fallacy, energy monopolies, resource control, and groupthink all play a hefty part in this scam. The media and the universities are funded by big-oil foundations, hell even the big global warming alarmist channel, MSNBC, broadcasts from (gasp) ROCKEFELLER CENTER. They have a good reason to push it. Look into the Club Of Rome whom Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and MANY "global warming" alarmist professors,politicians, and all-around "brainy" dudes are members of. Back in the 70s they concocted a plan to convince the people of the world to fight an "environmental" battle against THEMSELVES! in order to bring about world government, this is well documented.

Just look at that Club of Rome site, half of the new members are "environmentalists" for fucks sake. These guys tell the CFR and the UN how to manipulate the population. You are a fucking dupe dude! Like for real, a huge dupe, I understand you don't know how to research things for yourself or you are just stuck on the "facts" you've been fed, but for fuck's sake dude, this is /r/conspiracy not /r/politics

edit: Here: http://www.usacor.org/archive/index.html is a list of books put out by the Club of Rome, one of the books is entitled: The World Federalist Manifesto. Guide to Political Globalization. When you look at the table of contents for this book, it's like a layout for how to take individual nation's sovereignty away and amalgamate into the UN.

Thank you for proving the OP's point.

Answer me this;

If it is a hoax, can you explain to me what is end game? What do "they" stand to gain?

Likewise, if it isn't a hoax, what do you and everyone on the planet stand to lose?

I don't even understand why "big-oil foundations" would want to push an agenda that counsels for drastically less oil use, but apparently that's part of the conspiracy?

The fact of the matter is, and I am trying not to sound like a new age hippy, but this is the ONLY planet we have.

Makes perfect sense that we take precautions and try to protect it so we can increase the longevity of the earths sustainability. Hell, if it turns out to be something out of our control, then all we have lost is money.

But if we do nothing, don't invest money and resources into this and it turns out it could cause our extinction, then we're fucked.

Right? and even if it doesn't cause global warming, where's the harm exactly? Oh no, we have vastly more resilient, decentralized energy infrastructure that relies on renewable resources that every country can use, and are no longer even a little bit at the mercy of other countries! MY GOD IT'S TERRIFYING

We no longer are at the mercy of oil producing countries, THE HORROR!!

Some have argued (and I agree) that we're not at the mercy of them now, but a lot of people remember the oil embargo and presume we are. And for those people, why would we not want renewable, home-made energy?

Exactly, either way why would you want to be dependent on a finite resource?!

"They" stand to gain control over every aspect of human life. Scientific Authoritarianism. The academic institutions are heavily controlled by funding bias, this is blatant to anyone who actually takes a step back and looks at the numbers. But since funding bias expose's don't get in your mainstream science magazines, you mindlessly believe everything. The oil companies are funding this because they fund the alternative energy sources as well, this gives them the ability to hoard resources and charge out the ass for them. Is no one a critical thinker here anymore or is /r/politics spilling over into /r/conspiracy again?

So science authoritarianism, in faking man made global warming, seeks to control every aspect of human life.

So they will find a link between homosexual relationships and the reduction of the ice caps in sole aid to control this aspect of human life as well?

You are beyond help my friend.

So they will find a link between homosexual relationships and the reduction of the ice caps in sole aid to control this aspect of human life as well?

What? Maybe you need help bro. If you knew anything, you'd know the people that push the global warming BS are pushing the "overpopulation" BS as well, so they would actually approve of more gays. http://blog.thedrahos.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/jaffememo.jpg notice on the left there, it says "Encourage Increased Homosexuality" to reduce population.

Sorry, you've linked me some random statement from Planned Parenthood in 1969? What has this got to do with scientists supposedly pushing a false theory on global warming?

You stated that they want to control the entire aspect of human life. My point was if it was every aspect of human life, like you fear, why are they not getting involved in regulating sexuality because it is "dangerous" for the environment? Why is their only agenda to stop our consumption of fossil fuels?

I just showed you that they are getting involved in sexuality. You must be completely ignorant to UN's Agenda for the 21st century. http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml

"Reproductive" health initiatives, curbing population growth. Agenda 21 deals with every facet of life. Which is why any organization linked to the UN is aligning it's goals with that of the UN. NASA included. From "watershed management" to property rights, to redistribution of wealth. Their only agenda ISN'T to stop the consumption of fossil fuels it's only one small aspect of the bigger picture. Are you new here? Because my guess is that you are a troll and by looking through your history I'd say you're a socialist with no concept of the products of socialism, just the ideals.

Wonder what the products of socialism are; please enlighten me.

Oh and you showed me one document, one frigging document is supposed to be representative of the ENTIRE scientific community?

Nice try.

The products of socialism are serfdom, the loss of individuality(collectivism), authoritarian government dictating to the people based on a "greater good" as opposed to individual rights, the loss of property rights, stifled innovation, stifled work ethic, etc. Your idealism is ridiculous, just like the anarchist idealism is ridiculous.

Thank you for your opinion on the subject but as with every anonymous voice I encounter on the internet I would like to see evidence for this.

I'll await your sources, proof and evidence.

Soviet Russia, it's called a history book. Also modern day Sweden. I know you're just some brainwashed dupe and that's okay!

So no links? You really have NO idea what you are talking about do you?

I'll help; what you are probably thinking of in terms of "Soviet Russia" is what was called "Stalinism" a butchered version of Communism.

I mean seriously, in your mind Socialism is just another word for Communism, this horrible thing that killed approximately 20 Million people in Russia. Nothing to do with the fact that Stalin was a deranged psychopath. Here is an interesting tidbit;

Stalin's ideas of Socialism in one country, his adoption of many aspects of capitalism, and his turn to complete, permanent dictatorship were all in stark contradiction to the ideologies put forth by Lenin or Marx.

I knew you didn't understand the basic concepts of Socialism when you try to claim that Sweden is a socialist country. Do the workers of Ikea own the means of the production? No they do not and FYI brains, Sweden is a mixed market economy.

Sweden is a highly competitive capitalist economy with a generous and universal welfare state that distributes income across the entire society, a model sometimes called the Nordic model. Approximately 90% of resources and firms are privately-owned, with 5% owned by the state and another 5% operating as consumer or producer cooperatives.

Educate yourself boy, just because a country has a strong welfare state doesn't mean it is "socialist".

Also, you believe that all of those ills you described as products of socialism are rife in Sweden?

Have you been to Sweden?

So you are brainwashed. I knew it. Yes, I've been to Sweden. My family is Swedish, my great aunt works at the hall where they hand out the Nobel prizes. Sweden is more of an example of the collectivist side of socialism than the economy. They frown on individuality. That's what I was pointing out, you went all out, I suppose I could have been more specific.

Also, socialism is still a bad idea. You are obviously a big fan. Go you.

Nothing but hot air here. No contrary sources or facts to back up your point of view. I imagine you are around 17 years old and don't understand the concept of adult debate.

I wish you the most prosperous and happy life chap.

Nothing you've said proves the utopia of socialism. Nothing you say will. The UN is attempting to set up socialist communitarianism worldwide, don't think for a second that it will be a good thing, although I can tell your indoctrination has taken and you will probably welcome it with open arms.

Any evidence for the UN conspiracy? Or just comes from Alex Jones and the back of your bored little mind?

actually we've laid a lot of evidence out in /r/UNAgenda21 it's not really a "conspiracy" per say, it's actually what is called an "open conspiracy" where they are blatant about their plan. It's old and has been published hundreds of times by numerous authors including Julian Huxley, Bertrand Russell, Maurice Strong, Lord Rothschild, H.G. Wells, etc. The people who were initially part of founding the UN had very specific goals that had been made decades prior to the founding of the UN. But see, you'll probably poo-poo all of this because you're too lazy to actually do any kind of research.

The "open conspiracy" at this point is the UN directed foundations like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Pew, Heritage, etc, fund organizations called NGOs(non-governmental organizations) and non-profits that push the initiatives of the UN plan in local municipalities and regional governments. The evidence is everywhere. The NGOs and non-profits can say they aren't affiliated with the UN because technically they are not connected directly to it, but their goals and their language all line up to the T with the UN's directives. I can guarantee that your local municipalities have been infiltrated by these NGOs or non-profits who hand out grant money to city councils and COGs under the stipulation that they initiate programs that align with their goals. Just type in a search engine "(your city) sustainability" or "(your city) 2020 plan" or "(your city) livability", there are a ton of different buzzwords that they use and it is a broad spectrum of initiatives. If you look at the Agenda 21 document itself you can find different aspects of it are being implemented in your city via these groups, some of it being pushed by seemingly "grassroots" movements. Like here in my state there is a non-profit group of people who are trying to limit the amount of fertilizer that farmers can use on their land, that group on their website lists about 5 or 6 NGOs they are affiliated with, if you go to any one of those NGO's sites they all list their funding as one of the major foundations. If you go to /r/UNAgenda21 and go through the list there are a TON of NGOs we have found pushing the agenda backed by major foundations that have signed on to the UN charter to bring about the global governance.

Any questions?

Also: http://www.enscriptchun.net/words/sa/ps3.html There the difference between socialism and communism, neither is good. There is always a ruling class and a mass of slaves aka the Proletariat.

I think this is just confirming OP's point.

RIGHT RIGHT, GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX! A HOAX, I SAY!

http://www.globalgovernancewatch.org/spotlight_on_sovereignty/support-for-un-governance-of-space-explains-nasa-development-agenda

NASA is aligned with the UN goals as well, so they of course will push this myth. What about how the Antarctic Ice is at record levels, where's all your articles about that? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/12/antarctic_ice_growth_investigated/

Well if you believe that them aligning with the UN means that they push myths, then you're retarded.

Sounds good to me I mean I for one welcome a one world government if the world is ever in a position to have one. I

Genius. Hopefully someone you love drowns you some day.

Thankfully I have people I love. In fact love and friendship are qualities I am very familiar with unlike someone apparently as bitter as yourself. Keep screaming your paranoia my friend, one day you can drown yourself alone in your bath tub.

There's a big difference. Most religious arguments are equally valid because they are based on faith, or the bible. If a person says that someone is possessed by a demon, you can't exactly say that they have a misrepresented view on religion because Christianity doesn't deny the presence of demons or their ability to possess people. Just because that viewpoint is considered a little silly nowadays doesn't mean it's a misrepresentation. Scientific arguments are based on experimental data and findings, so it is much easier to identify a misrepresentation.

If your point was to show that faith and science are not equally valid, then yes, you proved a point.

I'm sorry, I did not see this reply.

I was careful to state nothing about the men, since they cannot be easily verified after the fact.

The reflectors were placed there. Either it was by men, by someone else, or NASA did it with robots and faked the Manned part.

Our knowledge of robotics was far too crude to do so at that time. It seems very unlikely to me that it was done that way. Far more likely for humans to have been used.

Sure, I would like to know. Don't be mad if i ask follow up questions though.

Or it could reflect all angles.

Very well said. As a former libertarian I can attest that is exactly what I did for years. It was when I started studying ethics and learned about ethical theories outside of "natural law" and egoism, such as deontology and utilitarianism, that I began to change the way I thought about the world.

Like a lot of libertarians I thought I knew a lot about economics as well, until I took a macro economics class and realized that most of what we called "economics" was just egoistic moral theory applied to how the economy should work. This isn't to say that there aren't libertarian economists, but unbridled capitalism is not exactly a mainstream view among those with PhDs in econ (which of course means that they're covering up the truth because they're evil communists).

There you go again.

Dude, how can we have a conversation if you have a superior tone and not links. Im not going to take your comments as all knowing and definitely won't even consider your arguments if they are written in a tone of superiority. Also, just because I have said one argument doesn't mean I believe in a similar one. I'm getting the vibe that you think you know all about the history of christianity and that you think you know my opinions about life.

However, I do like the information you provided. But understand, you know this information because you read it from sources. Where did these sources get their information and so on.

Anyway, I don't think the rapture is not going to happen as the church describes it. http://www.crivoice.org/rapture.html We will see a second coming, however that is manifested. Probably won't be a physical second coming of Jesus.

The trinity doctrine and rapture aren't in the Bible and are just human ideas and constructs based on their believed interpretation of the Bible. In the original languages of Greek and Hebrew, there are no words that match the word rapture because it is a latin word. I know you understand language is the only way we have been presented bible doctrine. And you understand that certain meanings of words can't be reproduced in a certain language. You have have the general meaning reproduced, but not the exact. And over time, if the language is being translated and translated, then it has to be altered somewhat. More importantly, language is only one way of presenting our opinions to others. There are thoughts and feelings that can't be put into words in certain languages or in language in general. Even now, I can't show you my minds thoughts without using so many different words. And even if I do, I still won't be able to portray my idea in the exact way as I see it. That would require way to many words. Well, do you not see the problem?

So, when you have the original, old Hebrew and you are translating said language into latin or whatever other form of language. You Will have change. It won't say the exact message that it used to. And since we interpret the verses instead of taking them literally, then we are at a loss for finding the original, exact translation. It seems as though it will never happen because man has made it impossible in this day and age. It has all been distorted so much there's no way anyone alive today will figure out the actual truth. It's too much information to process within a lifetime. If you have any time you should give this a listen. It explains the message i'm trying to portray about language. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy8kRrNMwBc&feature=related You can do a google search of Alan Watts if you like, but he's just a born and raised christian that understood many aspects I hope to articulate.

Also, here's a great read about the problem with translation. It concerns the council of nicea. http://www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea/

Also, were you hinting that anonymous is an army of guy fawkes coming to do away with the christian world? I agree that christianity is going to be persecuted a lot more once the financial system collapses. And yes, it will collapse. This is something I know for sure. The current fiat currencies have no other direction that is possible. But I don't think anonymous will have anything to do with that type of thing. I just seemed you were hinting at them by brining up guy fawkes and saying he has an army.

If you did not mean to imply the reflector was evidence of men landing on the moon, then why did you post it on a thread about men landing on the moon?

Also to recap you believe:

• NASA's "knowledge of robotics" was far to crude to rotate a reflector up/down/left/right.

• NASA's "knowledge of robotics" was good enough to make a video camera pan, zoom, and track a rocket during liftoff. Video

You are incorrect. The array uses cube retroreflectors that direct light back in the direction it came from. An error of 1/100th of a degree would make no difference; the libration of the moon alone would have a much greater effect on the angle.

He's /r/politics spillover, just look at his history.

New to this subreddit, yes. I figured that I would subscribe as I enjoy a good conspiracy. I'm getting the sense that I'll be disappointing by the discussions here. Unsubscribing now.

As they say, ignorance is bliss.

Yes, it is easier to just take what your given.