Give us your internets or we will kill you!

[Xt500]

You mean as opposed to believing him?

 

i have no idea what he says i have no interest in watching him.That said,until i know what he says or he doesnt i wont judge wether it could be right or not.

to properly judge something you need to look at everything available with an open mind and see where it points.Something some here seem unable to do.

[ronthenekred]

to properly judge something you need to look at everything available with an open mind and see where it points.Something some here seem unable to do.

 

You seem confused...

 

i have no idea what he says i have no interest in watching him.That said,until i know what he says or he doesnt i wont judge wether it could be right or not.

 

Yet you advise others not to visit the site...why, afraid you may believe him if you do?

[Tommo68]

There is also sufficient information on the internet to give credence to those that need the credence that Elephants were Gods, or shape-shifting reptilian aliens control Earth.

 

Now EVIDENCE is a slightly more difficult a concept to grasp for the conspiratorially inclined.

 

The accepted truth of thing generally is directly proportional to; Whatever people using various forms of media say multiplied by how many times it is repeated.

 

The same can be said when a thing is discredited... if enough people say something is not so then eventually other people will begin to doubt the truth of it also.

 

Unfortunately not enough people are willing to look at ALL the evidence before dimissing other people's view as being wrong, just because they are not able to understand ALL the evidence ...if they actually bothered with it.

 

Evidence is simply that evidence it does not lie, it may be open to misunderstanding, misinterpretation or simply presented to you in a form that supports the view of the presenter and not necessarily the truth.

 

For example: and I have particular view on this either way as there is sufficient conflicting evidence for doubt and quite enough to create uncertainty. If you do not have a closed mind of course...some people will slavishly or sheepishly believe anything and everything they are told if someone in 'authority' or 'official' tells them.

 

Many people believe that the americans sent people to both orbit and land upon the moon. There has been much debate as to whether or not this really took place and there is much evidence in support of both opposing points of view. (something that many small minded people will deny of course).

 

There is absolutely loads of discussion about both views on this available on the internet that has not yet been taken down yet... see for yourself if you are interested.

 

What I find intrigues me is that very little of the evidence against these missions ever having really taken place has been refuted.

 

That is what I find interesting...because I have tried to look at all the evidence and not just taken someone else's view on it.

 

Of course some, again..small minded people thet really can't help themselves, will try to discredit what I have just said which actually if you think about it re-enforces what i've just said.

 

I'd like to think that these people are not allowed to raise or even supervise children but that is a whole other topic for potential discussion.

.

.

 

.

[Cyclone]

What do you imagine evidence that something didn't happen looks like?

 

(What I'm getting at, is that you're actually talking about a lack of evidence, rather than evidence against).

 

It's interesting that you try to label anyone who disagrees with you as small minded, before they've even disagreed. It's just an attempt to stop them disagreeing publicly, by insulting them in advance.

[Guest]

There is sufficient information on the internet to give credence to the argument the Paris incident was a false flag one.

 

There is sufficient information on the internet to back up almost anything anyone says. It doesn't make it true.

[flamingjimmy]

What do you imagine evidence that something didn't happen looks like?

 

(What I'm getting at, is that you're actually talking about a lack of evidence, rather than evidence against).

 

It's interesting that you try to label anyone who disagrees with you as small minded, before they've even disagreed. It's just an attempt to stop them disagreeing publicly, by insulting them in advance.

 

And it won't work on me!

Many people believe that the americans sent people to both orbit and land upon the moon. There has been much debate as to whether or not this really took place and there is much evidence in support of both opposing points of view. (something that many small minded people will deny of course).

 

There is absolutely loads of discussion about both views on this available on the internet that has not yet been taken down yet... see for yourself if you are interested.

 

What I find intrigues me is that very little of the evidence against these missions ever having really taken place has been refuted.

 

The US almost certainly did land people on the moon.

 

The conspiracy stuff about shadows, about the flag movement, about the stars, all well refuted.

 

What a terrible example to pick.

[Obelix]

 

Many people believe that the americans sent people to both orbit and land upon the moon. There has been much debate as to whether or not this really took place and there is much evidence in support of both opposing points of view. (something that many small minded people will deny of course).

 

 

No. That's the fallacy of the false middle ground. If there is evidence of landing, then you cannot say, that well there's some evidence they didn't land and fence sit. It's either one or the other.

 

If you want to prove they didn't land, then you have to provide evidence of that, and disprove all the evidence that they did land, like the photos, the rock samples that came back, the radio observations, the reflectometers that are still there and the images of the landing sites from orbit showing the landers...