"The planets you may one day hope to possess - but the stars are not for man."

- Arthur C. Clark, Childhood's End

Manhattan Buckeye;678152 wrote:"These are the first real "logic arguments" for landing on the moon that I've seen presented in this thread. "

The first argument is that we aren't a bunch of $&%^ing morons.

didnt know being open minded makes you a fucking moron?

Pick6;678248 wrote:didnt know being open minded makes you a fucking moron?

Pick6, I always try to be open minded, but not to the point that I try to reinvent the wheel every time I hear something.

Open-mindedness doesn't equate to ignoring logic, as well as forty years of history. It's like a historical court case. To find an answer for yourself, instead of trying to hold a rand new hearing, one can just look at the evidence and notes presented to date regarding the case.

The way you are wielding the term would make it the antithesis of skepticism.

Scarlet_Buckeye;678117 wrote:These are the first real "logic arguments" for landing on the moon that I've seen presented in this thread. Thank you to these posters for FINALLY presenting some "logic" as opposed to "you're dumb if you don't believe..." etc.

Now... to retort the second post, again, a conspiracist could easily argue "well NASA just made up a number and said the moon is moving away this amount of centimeters a year" - something that the average person wouldn't be able to refute one way or the other. I mean, come on... how is someone without a NASA telescope going to be able to challenge that assertion?

that is why I posted the second link. NASA isn't the only kid on the block when it comes to "Earth based" space exploration; most if not all of major universities have very large telescopes or have access to them and as you can see from the link, University of Texas has a powerful enough laser to verify this! Science works best when you let others verify and debunk you're findings.

Pick6;678248 wrote:didnt know being open minded makes you a fucking moron?

At a certain point, being open minded becomes being an idiot. One can be open minded about breathing underwater, after a while, watching person after person drown after swallowing water it isn't being open minded anymore. When it comes to these theories, we've gone beyond being open minded - we're just accepting theories that are more ridiculous than the truth.

Manhattan Buckeye;678425 wrote:At a certain point, being open minded becomes being an idiot. One can be open minded about breathing underwater, after a while, watching person after person drown after swallowing water it isn't being open minded anymore. When it comes to these theories, we've gone beyond being open minded - we're just accepting theories that are more ridiculous than the truth.

So if I were to say it's not farfetched for the government to conspire against our own people, and I provided proof, what say you?

lhslep134;678456 wrote:So if I were to say it's not farfetched for the government to conspire against our own people, and I provided proof, what say you?

I don't know about him, but I would say:

"Can solid defeaters be raised against said proof?"

If yes, then logically, I must discard it as inaccurate. If no, then I must entertain the possibility of its truth.

If the former is the case, but a person continues to ignore the defeaters and insists on its truth, I will become annoyed and will point out why it is not a logical conclusion. If said person insists, I will simply dismiss that person as someone who is given into the romanticism of conspiracy over logical deduction.

lhslep134;678456 wrote:So if I were to say it's not farfetched for the government to conspire against our own people, and I provided proof, what say you?

Obviously, that you are a fucking moron. Haven't you been reading this thread?

Manhattan Buckeye;678152 wrote:"These are the first real "logic arguments" for landing on the moon that I've seen presented in this thread. "

The first argument is that we aren't a bunch of $&%^ing morons.

Again... not logical. There's plenty of morons out there. [I tease because I care. You're still one of my fav posters Manhattan]

-Society-;678465 wrote:Obviously, that you are a fucking moron. Haven't you been reading this thread?

Crap, you're right

O-Trap;678462 wrote:I don't know about him, but I would say:

"Can solid defeaters be raised against said proof?"

If yes, then logically, I must discard it as inaccurate. If no, then I must entertain the possibility of its truth.

If the former is the case, but a person continues to ignore the defeaters and insists on its truth, I will become annoyed and will point out why it is not a logical conclusion. If said person insists, I will simply dismiss that person as someone who is given into the romanticism of conspiracy over logical deduction.

Fair enough