No, I've no interest in taking that to PM. As you have publicly accused me of failing to consider relevant views here; you should either attempt to substantiate your charge against me publicly. or publicly retract it.
The mistake you're making is confusing the words correct and credible when used in conjunction with the word "always." They are NOT the same. I think you meant to use the word "correct" in which case I am in complete agreement.
Here is what you said:
"You also seem intent on overlooking the fact that evidence Galileo's pointed out against heliocentrism was always credible"
"Always credible" is not strictly correct from a literal viewpoint. Here is the correct way to phrase it:
"You also seem intent on overlooking the fact that evidence Galileo's pointed out against heliocentrism was always correct"
The evidence was always correct regardless of who or what or when it was discovered. That much we've agreed on, I think.
When you are saying "always credible," you are implying that off the bat in the 16th century, it should have been believable to everyone that he was correct and the heliocentric view should have been put to rest. You may not have meant it that way, but that is how it sounds. You overlook a couple of key things:
1. Credible: Capable of being believed;reasonable;plausible
2. Remember, the people in that time period lived in ignorance, some superstition, and under the guidance/influence of church dogma. You might even say that they had been largely brainwashed against such thinking so therefore, Galileo's arguments had no credibility in their eyes because it was not a reasonable or plausible scenario to them as taught by their masters, the church.
Semantics? Perhaps, but it is an important distinction. Galileo's argument was always CORRECT; it only became CREDIBLE when society accepted/realized the fact that he was correct.
Oh, another thing -- I would probably be the last person in the world to defend the Catholic Church, so whatever you say about them really has no effect on me because I don't care about them or what they thought (or think). Obviously their views with respect to Galileo (and probably many others) are ridiculous and you'll get no argument from me.
On the other hand, you obviously haven't rightly reviewed the arguments either for or against the official story of the JFK assassination or the OKC bombing, and I'm guessing the same holds true for the Moon landing too.
Regarding OKC, we were discussing the video and I said "Interesting, someone should submit the tape to forensics." That is the "conspiracy" we were discussing -- the missing tape segments, not the other component you linked (I don't care to discuss that one), as I made no comment on it. The lawyer in the link might be 100% correct -- or he might be completely wrong. What does it hurt to have a forensic analyst examine the tapes?
I also made it clear in this thread that I thought the whole JFK situation was very fishy, and that I didn't know what to make of it. That is an honest assessment. To be honest, I don't care how he was assassinated. The part of the conspiracy theories with regard to JFK that I am most interested in is the "Why?" The fact is, I can probably name 3 or 4 theories I've seen as to why he was assassinated. From the outlandish (JFK was going to reveal that the US government was in league with ETs) to the ones which are more reasonable (the mob was behind it). Which one is it?
As far as the moon landing hoax, you would be very incorrect in your statement. Moon and alien conspiracies were sort of a hobby for me, though admittedly, I've kind of lost track of all the alien conspiracies.
Getting married, accepting a new position, and buying a new house kind of put a crimp in my reading for those.
If you seriously want to discuss the Moon Hoax, I will. The "evidence" of the pro-hoax side is laughable, at best, and easily debunked. My favorite pieces of "evidence" are "Why, they're on the moon but you see no stars in the sky in the photos! That means it was here on earth!" or the ever popular "Why is the flag waving?!?!" Honestly, the most "compelling" evidence in their arsenal seems to be the shadows in the photos, but guess what? Easily debunked.
Granted, you haven't been making that mistake on your own, and rather many people do the same, because that is what the people perpetuating cover-ups trick you all into doing.
I have no doubt that there are some cover ups going on in certain things. I mean, there are documented cover ups with regard to things like military weapons systems and I was shocked that no one picked up on those. But the problem many conspiracy people I've seen have is that everything is a conspiracy. In case you missed it, there was an extensive list of "conspiracies" in another recent thread and it seems just about every major event, catastrophe, or recent phenomena made this guy's list.
And as I pointed out earlier, you can't argue with them. Any evidence you present is either:
1. Doctored by the government.
2. Spread as "disinformation."
3. Contradicted by "evidence" that they have, which if you debate, it almost always becomes a "his word" vs. "her word" argument. No thanks. In the end, I won't convince them otherwise, and they likely won't convince me otherwise.
Facebook
Twitter