Why so many conspiracy theorists and what to do about them

[rumak]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You've let your foot of the clutch too early... Read again.. I was supporting your comment, highlighting that some will believe it and use it as evidence... 

 

 

 

 

your  "clutching" at straws.    Don't even try to write anything sensible until you grow up and stop being condescending ... and sorry to say...obnoxious.  

No way I nor anyone can have a sensible discussion with you.   

"and that's all i have to say about that "  😉

 

 

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, rumak said:

your  "clutching" at straws.    Don't even try to write anything sensible until you grow up and stop being condescending ... and sorry to say...obnoxious.  

No way I nor anyone can have a sensible discussion with you.   

"and that's all i have to say about that "  😉

 

While we clearly don’t see eye to eye on vaccinations, it seemed we at least shared the common sense to agree the moon landings weren’t faked - your McDonald’s satire hinted as much.

 

But, you're stuck in this black-or-white, "with me or against me" mindset and have chosen offence at everything.  You've fumbled Critical thinking at a basic level - always thought you were smarter than that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bunnydrops]

49 minutes ago, rumak said:

 

I remember looking at one of those landing photos on "the moon"  and was a bit surprised by seeing something in the distance .  It definitely was the McDonads arches !  

 

no doubt some of the gullibles here will not understand that I am being humourous .   ( a lost art )

I only saw two photos that gave pause. One had to do with the crosshairs that supposedly were etched on the lens of one of the cameras, changing from black to white depending on the background. But the one that made me wonder was the film of the astronauts riding the buggy. Even now, they talk about one of the biggest problems of having a base on the moon is all the dust that any movement produces. But in the video, the dust the wheels picked up falls directly to the ground.

 

[richard_smith237]

23 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

But in most cases, there isn't enough evidence to be sure of anything 100% .

 

So people pick a side based on partial information, and partly on a hunch and partly on an innate mistrust of the powers that be. 

 

RFK Jr. has specifically named the CIA folks who killed JFK. I suppose you can conclude that RFK is lying ... but then doesn't that make you sort of a conspiracy theorist as well? Because now you're suggesting that a public official is lying. After all, RFK Jr is a govt official. So if you don't believe what he's saying, then you're saying govt officials cannot be trusted. And that makes you a conspiracy theorist. 

 

I will be waiting for your rebuttal amidst the Songkran mayhem, richard_smith237!

 

There’s nothing to rebut - I agree with you.

With time and more information, what were once dismissed as “conspiracies” often evolve into accepted truths. That’s precisely why I refer to them as valid conspiracy theories - because some hold merit until proven otherwise.

 

Others, such as the flat earth nonsense - are so utterly asinine they belong in the dustbin of idiocy. They’re easily debunked and only persist in the minds of the wilfully ignorant.

 

Maybe one of the issue is that some treat all conspiracy theories as one undifferentiated mass -either blindly embracing all of them or rejecting every single one. That kind of binary thinking is lazy.

 

Every theory deserves to be judged on its own evidence - some are valid, some are not.

 

 

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, bunnydrops said:

I only saw two photos that gave pause. One had to do with the crosshairs that supposedly were etched on the lens of one of the cameras, changing from black to white depending on the background.

 

Widely explained...  The crosshairs in Apollo moon landing photos appear black, white, or sometimes seem to vanish due to photographic effects, not fakery. They were always black, etched into a glass plate between the camera lens and film. When photographing bright or reflective surfaces, overexposure can wash out the crosshairs, making them appear white or invisible.

 

In properly exposed shots, they remain clearly black. Image processing, reproduction quality, and contrast adjustments can also affect their visibility.

 

It's a result of 1960s camera tech and lighting - not a conspiracy.

 

2 minutes ago, bunnydrops said:

But the one that made me wonder was the film of the astronauts riding the buggy. Even now, they talk about one of the biggest problems of having a base on the moon is all the dust that any movement produces. But in the video, the dust the wheels picked up falls directly to the ground.

 

In a vacuum, like on the lunar surface, there’s no air resistance - so objects fall at the same rate regardless of their mass.

 

That’s why dust kicked up by astronauts or the lander falls straight down in a perfect arc, just like a cannonball would. It doesn’t billow or swirl like it would on Earth, because there’s no atmosphere to create drag or turbulence.

 

This was demonstrated in a vacuum chamber experiment on Earth, where a feather and a steel ball dropped simultaneously and hit the ground at the exact same time - just like they would on the Moon.

 

Simple physics. No air, no resistance, no mystery.

 

[KhunLA]

I try to rely on information and knowledge I got decades ago, like 5 of them.   Throw in life's experiences along those decades, and it does make it a wee bit easier to sift through the BS.

 

Rule #1 ... is someone is going to make a profit, be skeptical of anything they say.

 

I know biology, I know healthy living, eating.  I know physics.  Basics that explain many things that can be done & happen.  Along with thing you shouldn't do or shouldn't happen.

 

From year 2000 onward, the crap they tried to push is mind boggling.  More so, most people believed  it, and some, still do 

[rumak]

13 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

While we clearly don’t see eye to eye on vaccinations, it seemed we at least shared the common sense to agree the moon landings weren’t faked - your McDonald’s satire hinted as much.

 

But, you're stuck in this black-or-white, "with me or against me" mindset and have chosen offence at everything.  You've fumbled Critical thinking at a basic level - always thought you were smarter than that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice try .....5555555

[Lacessit]

20 minutes ago, rumak said:

your  "clutching" at straws.    Don't even try to write anything sensible until you grow up and stop being condescending ... and sorry to say...obnoxious.  

No way I nor anyone can have a sensible discussion with you.   

"and that's all i have to say about that "  😉

 

 

Classic ad hominem attack. I'll bet you were only too happy to have  Big Pharma and modern medicine help you out when you broke your hip.

 

I do marvel at people who think their education, consisting of haunting conspiracy websites, is somehow superior to people who have years of training and experience in various fields of science.

 

If they were mathematicians, they would spend their time proving 2+2 = 3 or 5.

[bunnydrops]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Widely explained...  The crosshairs in Apollo moon landing photos appear black, white, or sometimes seem to vanish due to photographic effects, not fakery. They were always black, etched into a glass plate between the camera lens and film. When photographing bright or reflective surfaces, overexposure can wash out the crosshairs, making them appear white or invisible.

 

In properly exposed shots, they remain clearly black. Image processing, reproduction quality, and contrast adjustments can also affect their visibility.

 

It's a result of 1960s camera tech and lighting - not a conspiracy.

 

 

In a vacuum, like on the lunar surface, there’s no air resistance - so objects fall at the same rate regardless of their mass.

 

That’s why dust kicked up by astronauts or the lander falls straight down in a perfect arc, just like a cannonball would. It doesn’t billow or swirl like it would on Earth, because there’s no atmosphere to create drag or turbulence.

 

This was demonstrated in a vacuum chamber experiment on Earth, where a feather and a steel ball dropped simultaneously and hit the ground at the exact same time - just like they would on the Moon.

 

Simple physics. No air, no resistance, no mystery.

 

I agree with what you said, but spinning wheels should throw some dust.

[rumak]

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Classic ad hominem attack. I'll bet you were only too happy to have  Big Pharma and modern medicine help you out when you broke your hip.

 

I do marvel at people who think their education, consisting of haunting conspiracy websites, is somehow superior to people who have years of training and experience in various fields of science.

 

If they were mathematicians, they would spend their time proving 2+2 = 3 or 5.

you also are very often condescending and obnoxious .  

 

and mostly just use google and your own "objective sources 555  to try to make arguments.   Supplemented of course with your constant calling people stupid, idiots, and all the rest of the lefties playbook .    

 

though you like to mention my hip ..... I never discussed my feelings or experience with that accident .   So please stick to facts .  I know that is hard for you to do.

 

You have been envious of me for a long time .... my great gf,  my great thai,  even my great health .   So,  just go away .  I have put up with your attempts to play warrior for long enough .  

Hope you are doing well, otherwise ....

[Lacessit]

6 minutes ago, rumak said:

you also are very often condescending and obnoxious .  

 

and mostly just use google and your own "objective sources 555  to try to make arguments.   Supplemented of course with your constant calling people stupid, idiots, and all the rest of the lefties playbook .    

 

though you like to mention my hip ..... I never discussed my feelings or experience with that accident .   So please stick to facts .  I know that is hard for you to do.

 

You have been envious of me for a long time .... my great gf,  my great thai,  even my great health .   So,  just go away .  I have put up with your attempts to play warrior for long enough .  

Hope you are doing well, otherwise ....

LOL, why would I envy you? My Thai is not as good as yours, so what? I have a great GF. If your health is good, that's genetics. I've been told my physical fitness is in the top 10% for my age group.

 

You've had a hard life. It's left you with a considerable chip on your shoulder. I don't envy either of those.

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

13 minutes ago, bunnydrops said:

20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Widely explained...  The crosshairs in Apollo moon landing photos appear black, white, or sometimes seem to vanish due to photographic effects, not fakery. They were always black, etched into a glass plate between the camera lens and film. When photographing bright or reflective surfaces, overexposure can wash out the crosshairs, making them appear white or invisible.

 

In properly exposed shots, they remain clearly black. Image processing, reproduction quality, and contrast adjustments can also affect their visibility.

 

It's a result of 1960s camera tech and lighting - not a conspiracy.

 

 

In a vacuum, like on the lunar surface, there’s no air resistance - so objects fall at the same rate regardless of their mass.

 

That’s why dust kicked up by astronauts or the lander falls straight down in a perfect arc, just like a cannonball would. It doesn’t billow or swirl like it would on Earth, because there’s no atmosphere to create drag or turbulence.

 

This was demonstrated in a vacuum chamber experiment on Earth, where a feather and a steel ball dropped simultaneously and hit the ground at the exact same time - just like they would on the Moon.

 

Simple physics. No air, no resistance, no mystery.

 

Expand  

I agree with what you said, but spinning wheels should throw some dust.

 

They do, but only as far, and in an arc that the mass of the dust particles allows for in a vacuum in 1/6th of the earths gravity.

 

There is no 'billowing' of dust, as would be expected in an atmosphere. 

 

 

 

[rumak]

10 hours ago, kwilco said:

It’s not about winning arguments. It’s about planting seeds.

 

how about me planting this seed in your brain :   Your opening post you think is written in an objective manner .  It is not.   Your words are full of bias for the examples you state , being given as "obvious truths", so to speak.

Before any discussion of these ideas you  present can commence.... the bias i speak of would have to be discussed.   

I guarantee you that I , and others, could show you how your assertions are biased.

but as the saying goes:   I can explain it to you... but i cannot understand it for you.

 

now, for example :  did you just read what i said with an "open, objective mind ?"

Or were you fighting it every word of the way ?

[KannikaP]

5 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Never gave the moon landing a thought till recently.  Was it faked?

NO! What do YOU think?

[richard_smith237]

22 minutes ago, rumak said:

you also are very often condescending and obnoxious .  

 

and mostly just use google and your own "objective sources 555  to try to make arguments.   Supplemented of course with your constant calling people stupid, idiots, and all the rest of the lefties playbook .    

 

though you like to mention my hip ..... I never discussed my feelings or experience with that accident .   So please stick to facts .  I know that is hard for you to do.

 

You have been envious of me for a long time .... my great gf,  my great thai,  even my great health .   So,  just go away .  I have put up with your attempts to play warrior for long enough .  

Hope you are doing well, otherwise ....

 

Are you really planning to attack anyone who isn’t 100% aligned with your views?

 

Because that’s how it’s coming across. You seem to take genuine discussion as a personal affront- especially when someone presents an argument with a bit more finesse than your own heavy-handed swings.

 

Someone else’s education, socio-phonetics, and ability to construct a solid point isn’t a direct insult to you. It’s just discussion.

 

You’re acting like any disagreement is betrayal. Maybe take a breath.

 

Not every exchange needs to be the war you are trying to create - Sometimes, it’s just conversation.

[rumak]

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

LOL, why would I envy you? My Thai is not as good as yours, so what? I have a great GF. If your health is good, that's genetics. I've been told my physical fitness is in the top 10% for my age group.

 

You've had a hard life. It's left you with a considerable chip on your shoulder. I don't envy either of those.

 

 

 

 

 

You are an ENVY DENIER .......😅😂   Someone tells you the truth and you say they have a chip on their shoulder.   555

 

try again

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, rumak said:

 

how about me planting this seed in your brain :   Your opening post you think is written in an objective manner .  It is not.   Your words are full of bias for the examples you state , being given as "obvious truths", so to speak.

Before any discussion of these ideas you  present can commence.... the bias i speak of would have to be discussed.   

I guarantee you that I , and others, could show you how your assertions are biased.

but as they saying goes:   I can explain it to you... but i cannot understand it for you.

 

now, for example :  did you just read what i said with an "open, objective mind ?"

Or were you fighting it every word of the way ?

"I can explain it to you... But I cannot understand it for you".

 

Run that "condescending and obnoxious " tape again.

[rumak]

Just now, richard_smith237 said:

 

Are you really planning to attack anyone who isn’t 100% aligned with your views?

 

Because that’s how it’s coming across. You seem to take genuine discussion as a personal affront- especially when someone presents an argument with a bit more finesse than your own heavy-handed swings.

 

Someone else’s education, socio-phonetics, or ability to construct a solid point isn’t an insult. It’s just discussion.

 

You’re acting like any disagreement is betrayal. Maybe take a breath.

 

Not every exchange needs to be the war you are trying to create - Sometimes, it’s just conversation.

555555555 keep trying.    Just showing you and the other guy how silly you are

[BritManToo]

7 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

Credible fact-checked journalism is often behind a paywall.

 

Conspiracy theory websites usually aren't.

I used to moderate television news in the UK.

Nobody ever paid me to moderate conspiracy websites.

 

No wait ......

They didn't have websites back in those days!

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, rumak said:

 

You are an ENVY DENIER .......😅😂   Someone tells you the truth and you say they have a chip on their shoulder.   555

 

try again

Why should I bother, when you are so wrong?

 

"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Hitchen's Razor.

[richard_smith237]

Just now, rumak said:

555555555 keep trying.    Just showing you and the other guy how silly you are

 

You're attacking three people - you're not even discussing the discussion any more... 

 

Chill...  

 

When it comes to conspiracies, the key point that often gets lost is this: each one stands on its own. They’re not all created equal. Some have turned out to be valid - proven over time as real through hard evidence and declassified information.

 

Others, however, ride on the coattails of these legitimate revelations to justify absolute nonsense- like questioning the shape of the Earth.

 

The danger is in treating all conspiracy theories as part of the same package. Just because some turned out to be true doesn’t mean all are credible.

 

Critical thinking means assessing each claim individually, not blindly accepting or rejecting everything based on guilt by association.

 

 

[rumak]

the two silly boys on this thread are so busy firing off deflections that they haven't even had time to put sad emojis on my truths calling them out for what they are

 

55555

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, rumak said:

the two silly boys on this thread are so busy firing off deflections that they haven't even had time to put sad emojis on my truths calling them out for what they are

 

55555

I can see the signs of dementia already.

[rumak]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You're attacking three people - you're not even discussing the discussion any more... 

 

Chill...  

 

When it comes to conspiracies, the key point that often gets lost is this: each one stands on its own. They’re not all created equal. Some have turned out to be valid - proven over time as real through hard evidence and declassified information.

 

Others, however, ride on the coattails of these legitimate revelations to justify absolute nonsense- like questioning the shape of the Earth.

 

The danger is in treating all conspiracy theories as part of the same package. Just because some turned out to be true doesn’t mean all are credible.

 

Critical thinking means assessing each claim individually, not blindly accepting or rejecting everything based on guilt by association.

 

 

i am very chill ...... we all know that you are not .    people are tired of arguing with you and lace .   for obvious reasons.   i thought..eh, why not have some fun

 

i just thought it would be fun to let you guys have someone new to attack . 

grow up boys

[rumak]

Just now, Lacessit said:

I can see the signs of dementia already.

 

hahha  good one Lacey .      now you're getting rolling  hhaha

[richard_smith237]

Just now, rumak said:

the two silly boys on this thread are so busy firing off deflections that they haven't even had time to put sad emojis on my truths calling them out for what they are

 

55555

 

 

Explain these truths and discuss the discussion, or are your points so weak your only angle is personal attacks ??

 

Thus: If you've got a list of “truths” you're referring to, feel free to lay them out clearly so we can break them down one by one. I’m more than happy to explain or challenge ideas on their merit.

 

As for the “discussion” - I’m all about engaging with arguments, not dodging them. So if you’re feeling like the points haven’t been addressed properly, let’s refocus on the content. 

 

So… shall we have a proper debate, or is this going to be a juvenile sass-off ?

 

 

[Lacessit]

4 minutes ago, rumak said:

the two silly boys on this thread are so busy firing off deflections that they haven't even had time to put sad emojis on my truths calling them out for what they are

 

55555

I don't use negative emojis. You should try it sometime.

[bunnydrops]

16 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

They do, but only as far, and in an arc that the mass of the dust particles allows for in a vacuum in 1/6th of the earths gravity.

 

There is no 'billowing' of dust, as would be expected in an atmosphere. 

 

 

 

That is a much better video than I saw way back when. I'm good with that.😊

[rumak]

how you members enjoying this ?     usually i just watch from the sidelines and think..

here they go again  5555 

 

sometimes a few particular jerks need to be told the truth ......

No conspiracies about that !

 

 

[rumak]

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

Explain these truths and discuss the discussion, or are your points so weak your only angle is personal attacks ??

 

Thus: If you've got a list of “truths” you're referring to, feel free to lay them out clearly so we can break them down one by one. I’m more than happy to explain or challenge ideas on their merit.

 

As for the “discussion” - I’m all about engaging with arguments, not dodging them. So if you’re feeling like the points haven’t been addressed properly, let’s refocus on the content. 

 

So… shall we have a proper debate, or is this going to be a juvenile sass-off ?

 

 

classic lefty tactics ............ trying to call others what they are .

 

personal attacks ?   you mean pointing out your use of  stupid, moron, idiot, nut cases,etc all in ONE post of yours?     You and Lacy  are classic cases of boys trying to be men by calling names.   And then , you love to get into "debates" .    Hence i repeat :   grow up

 

end of debate .