12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Yes it does. From the Wikipedia page on vaccination, for example (you will, of course, retort that these are "facts", de facto admitting that it's okay to have a steadfast belief it it falls in the "fact" category):

Vaccination has saved 154 million lives, 95% of whom are children younger than five years of age.

Some parents believe vaccinations cause autism, although there is no scientific evidence to support this idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination

No amount of data challenging these dogmas will be even considered by their proponents, ergo said proponents are believers.

My time is incredibly precious and therefore I don't engage in repetition; read through the Is Earth round or flat and Exposing the Apollo moon landings as a hoax - Bart Sibrel threads, it's all there. I might have specific things to say regarding the remake Artemis II once more information emerges and/or I have taken the time to do a deep dive on it, but unfortunately that will have to wait for now.

If you feel happy then that's great, and I mean that very sincerely.

QED - you have an opportunity but can't take it. I see a slow realisation is going to overwhelm you.

31 minutes ago, kwilco said:

QED

Look up 'motivated reasoning'.

38 minutes ago, kwilco said:

I see a slow realisation is going to overwhelm you.

Go Science™!

12 hours ago, kwilco said:

Medical research in the UK is primarily funded by a mix of government, charity, and commercial sectors, with medical research charities often contributing the largest share of public-facing funding, accounting for roughly 41-44% of it. Major funders include the Medical Research Council (MRC) (government), large charities like Cancer Research UK, and pharmaceutical companies - you\re not very well-read.

Doesn't change the fact that pharma has a very large incentive and the influence to steer all funding to pharma-friendly research.

This thread is still alive?

I just came across another wacky conspiracy theory related to Big Pharma.

Not sure if it's true or complete quackery, but I'll post it anyway.

Not saying I believe it, but just putting it out there.

He is claiming pre-modern hospitals were superior to current hospitals and were all demolished before 1900.

The older hospitals used bells and were designed like cathedrals for "resonance healing" or "tonal healing" or "frequency medicine / acoustic therapy"

... and this was replaced to treat people with pharmaceuticals.

and the germ theory is mentioned in this video ... as you guys have brought up in previous threads.

Half of the medical schools in the US were shut down. So they were obviously teaching a very different curriculum pre Big Pharma.

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

He is claiming pre-modern hospitals were superior to current hospitals and were all demolished before 1900.

The older hospitals used bells and were designed like cathedrals for "resonance healing" or "tonal healing" or "frequency medicine / acoustic therapy"

... and this was replaced to treat people with pharmaceuticals.

and the germ theory is mentioned in this video ... as you guys have brought up in previous threads.

Half of the medical schools in the US were shut down. So they were obviously teaching a very different curriculum pre Big Pharma.

It is well documented that lots of 'older' buildings throughout the world were designed in a way which was too advanced for the 'official' capabilities of the time, with spires and geometrical shapes designed to channel energy and frequencies.

57 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

It is well documented that lots of 'older' buildings throughout the world were designed in a way which was too advanced for the 'official' capabilities of the time, with spires and geometrical shapes designed to channel energy and frequencies.

Man, the nutters are out today. Is Easter a special time for them? They believe a dead man can be resurrected?

1 hour ago, emptypockets said:

Man, the nutters are out today. Is Easter a special time for them? They believe a dead man can be resurrected?

We're out every day and don't forget we took over the White House.

A big part of the problem with conspiracy theorists is they don’t even understand what “critical thinking” actually is.

 

They think it just means thinking a lot — or worse, automatically doubting anything mainstream. In reality, it’s a discipline. It’s about weighing evidence, questioning your own assumptions, and being prepared to change your mind. That last bit is where it all falls apart.

 

Same with scepticism. Proper scepticism isn’t just arguing with everything or shouting “prove it” on repeat. It cuts both ways — you apply the same standards to what you want to believe as well as what you don’t.

 

Conspiracy thinking flips that completely. It’s not critical thinking; it’s selective thinking. Not scepticism, just reflexive contrarianism dressed up to look clever.

 

They’re not applying a higher standard. They’ve just removed standards altogether — as long as the conclusion feels right.

 

Another tell? No one ever disputes the label.

You’ll rarely see anyone say, "Actually, no, that doesn’t apply to me.” Quite the opposite — many lean into it as a badge of honour. In their minds, being called a “conspiracy theorist” just confirms they’re onto something others can’t see.

 

Which says a lot.

 

If your worldview was genuinely rooted in evidence and critical thinking, you’d probably push back against being lumped in with flat-earthers and moon-landing deniers. But they don’t — because the identity itself has become part of the appeal.

It’s not a criticism to them. It’s validation.

7 hours ago, kwilco said:

It’s not a criticism to them. It’s validation.

Damn right it is. "QED", eh?

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Damn right it is. "QED", eh?

Then it dawned on you. After watching the Artemis 2 you realised they ARE going around the moon. They DID go to the moon back in the day. How cool.

46 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Then it dawned on you. After watching the Artemis 2 you realised they ARE going around the moon. They DID go to the moon back in the day. How cool.

Not everybody is of your conviction that Artemis II is the proof that debunks the non-believers.

Source: https://markcrispinmiller.substack.com/p/sorry-to-burst-your-bubble-if-any

Not to say there is not some rocket going somewhere, although I even doubt that, but there are no humans anywhere near. I called then 'Hoaxzanaults'. But perhaps 'Fraudanaults' might be better. But then again, how can an AI character be anything other that digital row of ones and zeroes?

Perhaps I'm being to cynical. Some think they are holed up in studio 69, pretending to send messages back to earth. One can be heard whispering; 'Can't we get some McDoughnuts sent in from the canteen?' So I'll conclude that they are half-half; human and AI.

Interviews will be interesting for sure.

The enduring problem with conspiracy theorists isn’t just that they believe one unlikely idea—it’s that belief in one conspiracy almost always opens the floodgates to many more. It becomes a mindset, not a conclusion.

 

Take the Moon landings. For decades, a vocal minority has insisted the 6 Apollo Moon Landings were staged. Despite overwhelming evidence, they’ve clung to recycled claims about shadows, flags, and studio sets—arguments long since dismantled.

 

But here’s the uncomfortable truth for them: modern lunar missions, high-resolution satellite imagery, and independent verification from multiple countries have made the “moon hoax” narrative virtually impossible to sustain. This isn’t just inconvenient—it’s catastrophic for the broader conspiracy mindset.

 

Because once one cornerstone collapses, the rest begin to topple.

 

What we’re seeing now is a kind of intellectual domino effect. The same shaky reasoning used to deny the Moon landings underpins other ideas—flat Earth claims, pseudo-scientific theories, and a general distrust of verifiable evidence. When one falls apart under scrutiny, it exposes the method itself: selective evidence, misunderstanding of science, and an overreliance on “feels true” arguments.

 

And that’s why the response is so often retreat rather than rebuttal. When challenged, many fall back on throwaway lines about photography or gravity—points that don’t survive even basic examination. There’s rarely a coherent defence, just a pause while waiting for the next influencer or “guru” to supply a new narrative.

 

But reality doesn’t wait.

 

This isn’t about mocking individuals—it’s about recognising a pattern of thinking that collapses under its own weight. The real issue is not any single conspiracy theory, but the abandonment of critical thinking as a discipline. Scepticism isn’t about rejecting everything—it’s about testing ideas against evidence and being willing to discard them when they fail.

 

If there’s any positive outcome here, it’s this: when the contradictions become too obvious to ignore, some people do step back. They reassess. They return to evidence-based thinking.

And when they do, they’re not “defeated”—they’re finally engaging with reality again.

 

28 minutes ago, kwilco said:

But here’s the uncomfortable truth for them: modern lunar missions,

Having watched quite a few hours of the Artemis II mission official NASA live feed I'm totally underwhelmed at the 'hi resolution' video of the actual target... the moon streamed back 'live' for us plebeians to consume, perhaps they have true HD stored on the ship that they will 'release' later after some gate keeping..plenty of Hi res footage of floating astronauts,cuddly toys and microphones....and lots of toilet humour !!!

38 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Take the Moon landings. For decades, a vocal minority has insisted the 6 Apollo Moon Landings were staged.

That would be a few billion people.

Always ask, how many people have to conspire to support something if not true, and at what cost?

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Always ask, how many people have to conspire to support something if not true, and at what cost?

It's possible that the 'crew' went in to a weightless orbit and everyone else believed the computer/instruments at mission control ?..

I must say that the video feed from the official NASA feed of the stated mission have been very disappointing mostly video of the rear of the craft propulsion system mostly low quality video of the approach and slingshot around the moon...hope they do better next time.

5 minutes ago, johng said:

It's possible that the 'crew' went in to a weightless orbit and everyone else believed the computer/instruments at mission control ?..

I must say that the video feed from the official NASA feed of the stated mission have been very disappointing mostly video of the rear of the craft propulsion system mostly low quality video of the approach and slingshot around the moon...hope they do better next time.

So everyone at mission control is doing nothing but watching monitors?

Virtually every engineer on the program, of which there were thousands, would have to be in on it.

20 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So everyone at mission control is doing nothing but watching monitors?

yes... what else are they doing ???

1 minute ago, johng said:

yes... what else are they doing ???

Really? Why would NASA pay people to look at monitors, unless everyone at NASA was in on it?

And why did you clip my post?

Again: Virtually every engineer on the program, of which there were thousands, would have to be in on it.

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Really? Why would NASA pay people to look at monitors, unless everyone at NASA was in on it?

And why did you clip my post?

Again: Virtually every engineer on the program, of which there were thousands, would have to be in on it.

I 'clipped your post' for brevity no need to quote everything is there ?

They pay people to look at monitors because it uses money

and they have to stick to the script people that are paid stick to the script ?

You didn't explain what else except look at monitors the 'mission control' would be doing ?

Every engineer on the ground are not on the 'spaceship' are they ? all they get to see is what is presented on their computer monitor.

2 minutes ago, johng said:

I 'clipped your post' for brevity no need to quote everything is there ?

They pay people to look at monitors because it uses money

and they have to stick to the script people that are paid stick to the script ?

You didn't explain what else except look at monitors the 'mission control' would be doing ?

Every engineer on the ground are not on the 'spaceship' are they ? all they get to see is what is presented on their computer monitor.

What are you, an English teacher?

Everyone sitting at a monitor would have to be assigned something to do, depending on what they see in the monitor, or they all know it's phony.

You say: "They pay people to look at monitors because it uses money and they have to stick to the script people that are paid stick to the script ?". For that to be thousands of people at NASA had to be in on it.

Engineers would have to know what the equipment had to do to design it. They would have to be confidant it would work to approve it. Why would they have a working system capable of landing on the moon, and then just fake it?

Been round the moon and are on their way back.

What an adventure!

4 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Been round the moon and are on their way back.

What an adventure!

When was the last time you went around the moon? Or should the question be, around anything other than the shack you're living in?

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Always ask, how many people have to conspire to support something if not true, and at what cost?

Very few, through the compartmentalisation of tasks. It's all about the narrative.

37 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

When was the last time you went around the moon? Or should the question be, around anything other than the shack you're living in?

Such disdain for people with differing views… But one has to understand that Callum is of a superior breed, He is Ejoocated, you see…

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

Such disdain for people with differing views… But one has to understand that Callum is of a superior breed, He is Ejoocated, you see…

Nope, Callum just isn't a conspiracy theorist or a science denier, something that can't be said about you and the poster I replied to.